Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!UOFT01.BITNET!ASPDMM
From: ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (Bud)
Newsgroups: mod.legal
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <8511010146.AA06191@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 08:58:36 EST
Article-I.D.: ucb-vax.8511010146.AA06191
Posted: Thu Oct 31 08:58:36 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 07:14:10 EST
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 28
Approved: info-law@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

Arrgghh!

What good are disclaimers?  What's in a name?  Would that which we call
a rose by any other name....

Consider this.  Any act, be it advice, directions, even ==> GASP <== a
BBS, which might reasonably be expected to induce reliance, and which
in fact does induce that reliance to the detriment of another, can be
considered actionable in TORT. (does that sound familiar??)

Of course, there is the unreasonable aversion of the ABA to allow folks
to practice law without a license, so if you dispense advice too free-
ly you may have them to deal with too.

As to an implied disclaimer... take it to court if you feel up to it.
As for me, I prefer that I and my clients note refer on such "parole"
evidence.  I relish an academic discussion of legal issues, especially
as related to computer topics, since that is my vocation (can law be
considered an Avocation??).  But when that dicussion portends to go
beyond the realm of idle banter, you didn't hear it from me.

Now, I hope you'll pardon my proclivity to hyperbole, but you can't
really advocate an unbridled dissemination of advice that might cause
real damage if used improperly... can you?

Of course this is just my opinion.
Bud
a/k/a David Massey  ASPDMM@UOFT01