Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site burl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!rcj
From: rcj@burl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: crimes on the net && proposed group net.legal
Message-ID: <268@burl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Aug-83 20:10:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: burl.268
Posted: Thu Aug 11 20:10:56 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Aug-83 00:04:36 EDT
References: <227@aplvax.UUCP>
Organization: Western Electric, Burlington, NC
Lines: 30

I am very interested in the legal implications of certain aspects
of netnewslife, and I know a LOT of other people who are as well.

For that reason, I vote a resounding NO to the proposed
net.legal -- all we would ever see would be opinions, rumors,
hearsay, and BS.  It is one thing to post to net.auto and say
"You can fix that problem by replacing your carburetor (sp?)"
and be wrong about it.  It is quite another to have people
start reading (and believing, you know they will because the
BS artists on this net speak with such authority) about what
is legal and what is not.

Also, it is very likely that Joe Schmoe can honestly say that
replacing your carburetor will fix your problem with your car
because there is a good chance that it has happened to him in
the recent past.  How many people do you know who can say
"Yes, I was sued/sued someone for libel only last month, and ..."

In other words, why start a newsgroup whose posters will 95%
sure not know whether what they are saying is true or not, no
matter how much they believe that it is true; particularly a
group as potentially dangerous as net.legal.  Any lawyer/legal
assistant/senior law student types out there please feel
free to identify yourself and your credentials to me via
electronic mail; I will gladly post a summary to the net as
soon as the deluge of replies dies down.  :-)
-- 

The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3814 (Cornet 291)
alias: Curtis Jackson	...![ floyd sb1 mhuxv ]!burl!rcj