--- Axel Boldt axelboldt@yahoo.com wrote:
"[...] you further affirm that such text is not defamatory or in violation of any law; [...]"
I strongly object to this language. I do not feel a moral obligation to be bound by all laws, not even by all laws I happen to know about or that apply to me. Also, I am not capable to decide whether a given piece of text violates any law, not even those laws I happen to know about or that apply to me. I however do feel a moral obligation to be honest, which would therefore preclude me from affirming the above.
It would be nice if the lawyers would make it clear that the legalese is not so much designed to restrict our humanity as it is to restrict the scope and severity of potential lawsuits.
It would be nice if they could make that clear, but it would seem that they cant explicity stipulate that such legalese should rightly be taken with a big [[grain of salt]]--- so thus the rest of us are left to babble in plain English such layman distinctions, and never actully bridging the gap--with the exception of the use of arcane smoke signals and an occasional Navaho codeword.
~S~ "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." - Albert Einstein
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com