In article <x-adnZcoj-LpGR3bnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Tom Sloper" <tsloper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
I'm not a lawyer, but you can go a long with with "it is my opinion
that..."
For example: "Tom Sloper is a dirty, rotten scoundrel" = possibly
actionable (possibly not, but why hassle?) However, "it is my opinion
that people who get their advice from reading web pages would be far
better off getting some real experience" (or whatever) is just one man's
opinion and, should someone threaten to sue you for it, tell them "have
your lawyer send me a letter on official law-firm letter head, and I'll
give it its due attention [optional: ...peckerhead!]" ;)
Btw, this isn't a slam on Tom or his FAQs -- I think they're awesome! I
just used him as an example. Duh.
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which
sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
|
