On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 21:39, Tanstaafl wrote:
> What exactly makes you think that having the stupid disclaimer on an email is
> going to prevent someone from filing a lawsuit that would do so otherwise?
For the law firms whose speciality it is to sue for the lack of
disclaimers, it means that
On 2/26/2010 4:45 PM, Drew Jensen wrote:
> Just let it go for crying out loud..
But... but... but it is such a delicious piece of candy with such a
bright and shiny wrapper!
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.
Just let it go for crying out loud..
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
On 2010-02-26 12:36 PM, jonathon wrote:
> Whilst a lawsuit can be, and in some industries is nothing more than
> the daily cost of doing business, if that much, avoiding a lawsuit
> saves money, and as such, is what the prudent companies in those
> industries where being sued daily is a normal busi
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 17:01, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Anyone who imposes those ridiculous disclaimers, claiming that it is required
> by law when it is *not*, is a moron.
It is called prudence, a concept that you are obviously unfamiliar with.
I can't speak for Europe, but I can assure that in th
On 2010-02-26 11:52 AM, Twayne wrote:
> The preceding posts might have been billious and worse, but your comment
> here is totally uncalled for.
Are you belonging to the list police? If not, please mind thy own business.
And it isn't uncalled for. Anyone who imposes those ridiculous
disclaimers,
In news:4b87b2c0.3000...@libertytrek.org,
Tanstaafl typed:
On 2010-02-25 8:11 PM, jonathon wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:53, Tanstaafl wrote:
I have yet to see one law that actually requires this, when you
actually read it.
You have to look at both the case law, and the statute law, an
