Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:20:51 ADT
Black Unicorn (unicorn@schloss.li)
Thu, 23 Jul 1998 09:33:54 -0500
At 02:25 AM 7/23/98 , Steve Salkin wrote:
>At 12:02 AM 7/24/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>[ snip]
>>Your question is very vague to begin with. I don't believe there is a on
>>point ruling on "exporting expertise," which is what your question appears
>>to deal with. Of course, I can be sure because I have no idea what you are
>>asking here exactly and what the answer really might have said but it looks
>>rather twisted to me.
>>
>>Now, does this belong on CodherPlunks?
>>
>>You didn't pay me. This isn't legal advice.
>
>Well, my actual question was perhaps more specific, and appeared on this
>list yesterday. The people who chose to respond tended to speak to the
>general case, rather then my specific situation.
>
>As far as your "expatriating clients", they may well be able to follow this
>avenue.
sarcasm \'sar-,kaz-em\ n 1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic
utterance designed to cut or give pain 2 a : a mode of satirical wit
depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language.
This is, of course, completely ridiculous.
>I am summarizing the content of answers received on the list and in
>private email, a common practice designed to keep bandwidth consumption
>down. I am not a lawyer and if I knew the answers to these questions I
>would not have asked them. So save the sarcasm for someone who claims to
>know the answer, OK?
You are purporting to disseminate information. In this case it appears
patently flawed. It would stand to reason that you might supplement it by
trying to explain in more detail or with some citations. Don't go telling
people about legal consequences which you obtained from non-legal sources
and substantively modified and editorialized at your own whim. In my view
that makes you somewhat responsible for defending the position
(particularly because no sources are cited) and potentially reckless.
If you don't want to be called to task for misleading information you post,
either don't post or cite to respectable authority. Don't be an armchair
lawyer.
>Any one of the replies which appeared before this
>summary should do nicely.
Perhaps none of them knew how very silly your answers sounded.
>Does it belong on CodherPlunks? Well, at least it was about the consequences
>of implementing cryptosystems. Since this was the only complaint so far,
>and since the thread was over until you posted it, I'll assume that the
>harm, if any, did not outweigh the good.
I suggest you read the CodherPlunks charter.
I suggest the readers of the list take the summarized information (which
seems no more than the random musings of a series of people, none of whom
appear to be qualified to speak to the subject, compiled into less than a
paragraph) with a large grain of salt. Boulder size would be good.
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:20:51 ADT