> "Tom Sloper" <tsloper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> 1. FAQ 24 - Altered what I wrote about lying scam artists, in response
>> to a lawsuit threat.
"Dan Lingman" <dlingman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> Sigh. I liked your older version better.
Me too.
> I suggest caution though, (or at least that you seek real legal advice
on
> this) cause even your watered down version could be taken as diverting
> revenue from them, and still leave you open to a lawsuit. I'd actually
> suggest removing the domains entirely, or phrase it so that it's
something
> like: I recommend that you do not send any money to any site that offer
> you
> paid member****p to assist in landing a game testing job. Again, suggest
> running the phrasing past a laywer.
I've been out of the country for the past week, thus the delay in
responding. I think I'll take your suggestion. Wannabes need protection,
but
that doesn't mean I should get my ass sued when there's a way to be
helpful
without that.
> Keep the updates coming though. It seems that there is little being
asked
> that you don't have an answer for, so the rate of new items (other than
> small tweaks to existing faqs) has dwindled.
Yep. That's why I stopped doing new ones monthly. Mostly what I find these
days are either more sorts of bad questions (yes there is such a thing) or
questions that are just twistings of the usual.
Thanks Dan,
Tom
|
