[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[New search]
To: Art Campbell <art.campbell@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Censorship alive and well on frameusers
From: "Jeremy H. Griffith" <jeremy@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:28:56 -0800
Cc: "hedley.finger@xxxxxxxx" <hedley.finger@xxxxxxxx>, framers@xxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: jeremyg-freeframers:org-ffarchiv@freeframers.org
In-reply-to: <c7d9dd600511220703y530a1a21uf06a2e5e1f825386@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Omni Systems, Inc.
References: <OF19D8B373.76FE8DEF-ONCA2570C1.0007E2BF-CA2570C1.000A4E45@myob.com.au> <c7d9dd600511211803y19fa0683r53c8e71e8ac67d5d@mail.gmail.com> <vq15o1phqfit4un1c3itlfg2nn1vc8g7qr@4ax.com> <c7d9dd600511220703y530a1a21uf06a2e5e1f825386@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: owner-framers@xxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:03:39 -0500, Art Campbell <art.campbell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >In theory I agree. I was on the uunet list too. However, the theory >ain't the reality. The "other list" is operated under the "possession >is 9/10ths of the law," maxim. And if it actually came to a court >case, they'd have a solid case for ownership. Not according to the attorneys I've consulted. ;-) They have no case at all, as will become crystal clear if there is ever a legal confrontation. (That's why homeowners have to buy title insurance.) I don't favor such approaches, as I see little sense to spending the $250K that could be required that way. I prefer to talk it through, or create alternatives... and have. ;-) -- Jeremy H. Griffith, Free Framers list admin <framers-owner@xxxxxxxxx> ** To subscribe to Free Framers, email the message ** ** body "subscribe framers" to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx ** ** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx ** ** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body. **