jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) (01/05/90)
More and more i see people including disclaimers in their posts saying that any opinions in the post are their own, and they're not speaking for their employer or boss or grandparents. Of course i already know that, but they still have to put them there because some people might not know that. What i propose is to draft up a statement that occasionally gets posted to some news groups, especially the new-user group, saying that any posts are assumed to represent the views of the individual, etc., unless otherwise specified. This way it will become legally `common knowledge' and people won't have to include those bandwidth-wasting disclaimers in every post. What do you think?
mason@habs11.dec.com (Gary Mason) (01/07/90)
Hear, Hear! Count me in support. mason@habs11.dec.com
rlp@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Bob Powell) (01/10/90)
I too support the idea of a notice about implied disclaimers. Of course, those disclaimers give some people a chance to get creative and cute; I guess they'll just have to create cute dozen-line .sig files. Bob
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (01/11/90)
She said that he said that she said that rlp@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Bob Powell) said:
-I too support the idea of a notice about implied disclaimers.
-Of course, those disclaimers give some people a chance to get
-creative and cute; I guess they'll just have to create cute
-dozen-line .sig files.
The thing about implied disclaimers is that they overlook those times
when a person *does* speak for their organization.
Personally, I don't think it's any big deal, whether a disclaimer is there
or not. I have one in my .sig because I have to have one, but it also doesn't
take up much space. People who have long disclaimers are going to continue
to have them, whether a disclaimer is implied or not; they do it because they
want to. So what's it matter?
--
David Bedno aka davidbe@sco.COM: Speaking from but not for SCO.
Is talk.lists a good idea? Is talk.lists a bad idea?
mail yesvote@sco.COM Vote ends 2/5 mail novote@sco.COM