Re: Stus-List List discussions on list
Sounds good to me, but sorry to say... not this year. http://www.greaterfool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/WORRIES.png?x64811 Cheers, Russ Sweet 35 mk-1 At 08:53 AM 26/11/2016, you wrote: Yup I am Canadian based except Dec to April when I will be eenjoying the Florida sunshine. The web hosting company is in the USA. If anyone gets or is near to Umatilla, FL, drop me a note and weâll try to get together for a rum & coke. Stu ___ This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you wish to make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to: https://www.paypal.me/stumurray All Contributions are greatly appreciated!
Re: Stus-List List discussions on list
Umatilla looks landlocked Stu - what gives? Cheers, Randy Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 26, 2016, at 9:53 AM, Stu via CnC-List <cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote: > > Yup – I am Canadian based except Dec to April when I will be enjoying the > Florida sunshine. The web hosting company is in the USA. > > If anyone gets or is near to Umatilla, FL, drop me a note and we’ll try to > get together for a rum & coke. > > Stu > > > From: Edd Schillay via CnC-List > Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2016 11:31 AM > To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com > Cc: Edd Schillay > Subject: Re: Stus-List List discussions on list > > Jerry, > > I think Stu is based in Canada, so Canadian laws would apply (unless the web > server is in the US) > > > All the best, > > Edd > > > ___ > > This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you wish > to make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to: > https://www.paypal.me/stumurray > > All Contributions are greatly appreciated! ___ This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you wish to make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to: https://www.paypal.me/stumurray All Contributions are greatly appreciated!
Re: Stus-List List discussions on list
Yup – I am Canadian based except Dec to April when I will be enjoying the Florida sunshine. The web hosting company is in the USA. If anyone gets or is near to Umatilla, FL, drop me a note and we’ll try to get together for a rum & coke. Stu From: Edd Schillay via CnC-List Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2016 11:31 AM To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com Cc: Edd Schillay Subject: Re: Stus-List List discussions on list Jerry, I think Stu is based in Canada, so Canadian laws would apply (unless the web server is in the US) All the best, Edd ___ This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you wish to make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to: https://www.paypal.me/stumurray All Contributions are greatly appreciated!
Re: Stus-List List discussions on list
Jerry, I think Stu is based in Canada, so Canadian laws would apply (unless the web server is in the US) All the best, Edd --- Edd M. Schillay Starship Enterprise NCC-1701-B C 37+ | City Island, NY www.StarshipSailing.com --- 914.332.4400 | Office 914.774.9767 | Mobile --- Sent via iPhone 7 iPhone. iTypos. iApologize On Nov 26, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Jerome Tauber via CnC-Listwrote: Open main menu EditWatch this page Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity: The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service." The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue. ___ This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you wish to make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to: https://www.paypal.me/stumurray All Contributions are greatly appreciated! ___ This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you wish to make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to: https://www.paypal.me/stumurray All Contributions are greatly appreciated!
Re: Stus-List List discussions on list
Open main menu EditWatch this page Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity: The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service." The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue. ___ This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you wish to make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to: https://www.paypal.me/stumurray All Contributions are greatly appreciated!
Re: Stus-List List discussions on list
Certain firms have done vastly more damage to their reputation by trying to shut down discussion than they ever can recover by trying to stifle the discussion IMHO. Joe Della Barba j...@dellabarba.com ___ This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you wish to make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to: https://www.paypal.me/stumurray All Contributions are greatly appreciated!
Stus-List List discussions on list
By now, a lot of people have gone back to the archives and read the posts by Mr. Drew. It is his side of the story as he believes it happened. The Brokerage is not a member of the list but have been made aware of the posts (not by me). They have taken their own actions against Mr. Drew and are probably not at liberty to discuss the matter on this list or any social networking site. Some of our members have offered suggestions on purchasing a boat and many of them are good. But to suggest how to resolve the problems in litigation is not our place. That's what lawyers are for. Knocking or slamming a particular firm is fine until there is court actions involved. Then it should not be posted here unless you are willing to post both sides of the story. I doubt that will happen. At the same time, promoting a company because of the service they provided is 100% acceptable. It would be nice if you sent them a note too. So, at this time the judge (me) has ordered a 'publication ban' on this matter. We will just have to sit back and see what happens. Stu ___ This list is supported by the generous donations of our members. If you wish to make a contribution to offset our costs, please go to: https://www.paypal.me/stumurray All Contributions are greatly appreciated!