ljdickey@watmath.UUCP (Lee Dickey) (10/11/84)
I would be interested in knowing if you were forced by your employers to post this "apology". I think these disclaimers are ridiculous! I thought that the "apology" was a joke. There was no ":-)" in the article, but the tone seemed sarcastic to me.
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (10/11/84)
[:-)] Which apology was that? hound!rfg
sef@drutx.UUCP (FarleighSE) (10/11/84)
. I have a solution, shoot the lawyers! S. E. Farleigh
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/13/84)
> Is there anyone on the > net stupid enough to believe that articles posted by > people are officially being posted by the employer, > or that the employee can speak for the employer? Well, lawyers for one... I don't like them either, but in some cases I'm sure the alternative is no posting at all. Some places have been burnt by amazingly silly lawsuits and like to protect themselves. And there are always paranoids.... -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA How about 'reason for living?'
dave@timeinc.UUCP (David Mutterer) (10/16/84)
>> Is there anyone on the >> net stupid enough to believe that articles posted by >> people are officially being posted by the employer, >> or that the employee can speak for the employer? >Well, lawyers for one... I don't like them either, but in some cases I'm >sure the alternative is no posting at all. Some places have been burnt by >amazingly silly lawsuits and like to protect themselves. And there are >always paranoids.... Well, how about common knowledge law... if the majority of users make it clear that the traffic on the net is considered to be PERSONAL views and no one should believes that the messages represent the views of the company (unless of course the article states so..!) then it should be possible to convince the management that instead of posting disclaimers on EVERY article, that only articles the specifically says "This articles respresents the views of this company" should be taken "seriously".. Now if we get enough responces to this series of articles, then we can all take them to managment and say "read these"... WARNING: until further notice (thats why I am fighting also) below is our company's "required" disclaimer....YUK!! -- David Mutterer [vax135|ihnp4]!timeinc!dave "Any opinions expressed herein are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Time Incorporated."
rene@tove.UUCP (Rene Steiner) (10/19/84)
> I agree that the whole idea of an employers disclaimer is a bit silly. > But I can see that some lawyers could go round getting worried (or rather > getting company management worried -they have got to justify their existence > somehow). > Maybe we could update netiquette so that a disclaimer is to always be > assumed -unless explicitly stated. > Alain Williams (how interesting - this goes automagically to net.followup - what a wonderful idea!) I just now (in the past few days) switched to reading news on a different machine because my employer saw an article I posted to net.jokes.d (about a problem with 0 length articles - I first encountered the problem in net.jokes). He was worried about "what will people think if they see NIH employees reading net.jokes?" Of course, anyone reading my article ALSO reads net.jokes. I also wonder how HE saw my article. So, in case you're wondering, nothing I say or imply has ANYTHING AT ALL to with the opinions, management, or anything else to do with the US goverment, or reflects anythings at all upon any of the fuddy-duddies employed therein. This is all my opinion, of course. - rene -- rene@tove My opinions are my own, and no one can take them away from me!!!
dwight@timeb.UUCP (Dwight Ernest) (10/20/84)
> Maybe we could update netiquette so that a disclaimer is always to be > assumed... Well, that would be great... but according to our lawyers, at least, it wouldn't be good enough, I'm afraid. -- --Dwight Ernest KA2CNN \ Usenet:...vax135!timeinc!dwight Time Inc. Editorial Technology Group, New York City Voice: (212) 554-5061 \ Compuserve: 70210,523 \ EIES: 1228 Telemail: DERNEST/TIMECOMDIV/TIMEINC \ MCI: DERNEST "The opinions expressed above are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Time Incorporated, its management, or stockholders." [Unix is a trademark of AT&T Information Systems] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
malutza@daemen.UUCP (...KING CONAN...) (05/30/85)
----- News saved at 29 May 85 15:39:18 GMT
Please excuse me for misusing net.general,the system is new
here at Deamen College,and the 'cards' have not been laid out
clearly yet on how to use postnews.And for everyone attention
the article was cancelled May 17 or 18 in net.general.Once again-
--Please,I wish to apologize for the trouble my article made
in postnews.
Kieth Lemberg
is using this login to send this
apology ,as I used cs443 to post-
news.