DO NOT POST FSMs ON THIS FORUM

[XJEEPER]

Personally, I'll take cya over risk of exposure anyday......and I like to take risks.
I vote for keeping 's pants up.

[Lawn Cher']

Originally Posted by XJEEPER

Personally, I'll take cya over risk of exposure anyday......and I like to take risks.
I vote for keeping 's pants up.

Second. Do we have a motion? It's been a few weeks since the last one, I think we're due.

[dandecicco]

My net savy is lagging today so sorry for the question but FSM is an anachronism for . . .?

[Lawn Cher']

Factory Service Manual. Not really net speak.

[IH8RDS]

Originally Posted by dandecicco

My net savy is lagging today so sorry for the question but FSM is an anachronism for . . .?

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)

I was wondering why there was needless panty twisting over such a small country.

[CheapXJ]

people will sue any entity no matter what the intended purpose is, and even if they don't win, it's the wasting of resources dealing with said bullsh!t.

so if you wan an FSM click here

[ECKSJAY]

Originally Posted by IH8RDS

Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)

I was wondering why there was needless panty twisting over such a small country.

Someone leaked the PNW Chapter's next conquest.

Bastards, Loose Lips Sink Ships!

[RichP]

Was watching a show on junkyards the other nite. One was an aircraft boneyard that stopped selling to the industry because of lawsuits. The owner said he had sold a freakin radio and that radio was in a plane that crashed, even though he and the radio had nothing to do with it they were still named in the suit. While he said they won/beat them all it was a waste of resources, lawyers and money.
There are people out there that HUNT for things to sue for and lawyers that if they don't encourage it don't discourage it either...

[TRNDRVR]

Originally Posted by dmillion

Considering that the punishment for willful copyright violation is up to $150,000 per incident plus all court costs and legal fees, no, the word paranoid doesn't come to mind at all. The word prudent, however, does.

Originally Posted by casm

I have to say... Trndrvr has got a point here.

doesn't control the content of external links, so if someone else wants to risk hosting an FSM on their personal (read: non- / sb-host) webspace it's their business whether or not they want to potentially face prosecution for violating copyright laws. It's the difference between "you can buy bootleg DVDs in downtown L.A." and "I'm selling bootleg DVDs".

"Willful copyright violation"? I'll still use the word 'paranoid'.

[red91]

Originally Posted by ECKSJAY

Someone leaked the PNW Chapter's next conquest.

Bastards, Loose Lips Sink Ships!

its ok. We can still bag them before they get informed. PREPARE the VOLCANO !!

[Eagle]

Originally Posted by TRNDRVR

Forgive me but, does the word paranoid come to mind?

Officers and Directors of companies and organizations are there to be a little paranoid. It comes with the responsibility of being responsible for the organization. A lot of people don't want that kind of responsibility, so it's rather unfair to gang up on one of the people who is willing to step up to the plate.

Paranoid or not, DaimlerChrysler has teams of lawyers, and when it comes to protecting their trademarks and copyrights they have a reputation of being worse than junkyard dogs. Why should take the chance? Don't forget, if a problem should arise out of this kind of activity, it wouldn't matter if we ultimately won in court (as unlikely as that might be). By the time we got through the initial discovery phase would be broke and out of existence.

Okie Terry stated the policy. Why can't we just suck it up and play according to the rules?

[Eagle]

Originally Posted by RichP

Was watching a show on junkyards the other nite. One was an aircraft boneyard that stopped selling to the industry because of lawsuits. The owner said he had sold a freakin radio and that radio was in a plane that crashed, even though he and the radio had nothing to do with it they were still named in the suit. While he said they won/beat them all it was a waste of resources, lawyers and money.
There are people out there that HUNT for things to sue for and lawyers that if they don't encourage it don't discourage it either...

Now that you mention it, here's a classic example of just how far out of hand this can get:

Some years ago I worked for an architecture and engineering firm that specialized in building repair and restoration. One of our corporate clients was a large insurance company that owned a shopping mall on Long Island (NY, to you westerners). A roofing company was hired, directly by the mall, to repair a small leak. Worker was using a "torch-down" repair product, and he got careless and set the roof on fire. Fire department was called. Volunter department, one of the guys showed up half drunk, slipped off a ladder and hurt his back.

My company was hired ... AFTER THE FIRE ... to design repairs to replace the damged roof.

Several months later we got a notice that we were named as defendents in the drunken fireman's lawsuit. His (attorney's) circuitous claim was that our design was defective and therefore the roof caught on fire and if we hadn't specified a product requiring an open flame for installation his client wouldn't have been at the scene and therefore wouldn't have fallen off the ladder ... yada, yada.

Now .. it's bad enough that this clown's attorney dragged us into the suit even though we were not hired until after the fact. But that's standard ... sue anybody who even MIGHT be peripherally involved if they even MIGHT have some insurance you can grab. No, the really sorry part is that our insurance company wanted us to SETTLE THE CLAIM rather fight it. Their view was it would be cheaper ... for them. Of course, for us it would have meant that our premiums skyrocketed for several years because of a claim. My company actually had to sue our own insurance company to force them to defend us against an obviously spurious claim.

Does that give y'all just an inkling of why it would be better to just not even open the door to potential legal problems if at all possible? It may be paranoid, but we live in a crazy world.

Remember ... just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching.

[red91]

Originally Posted by Eagle

Officers and Directors of companies and organizations are there to be a little paranoid. It comes with the responsibility of being responsible for the organization.

cool...I should fit right in.

Originally Posted by Eagle

Okie Terry stated the policy. Why can't we just suck it up and play according to the rules?

good point. if you cant afford one.....rob your kids piggybank. Works for me.

[Rev Den]

Originally Posted by Eagle

Okie Terry stated the policy. Why can't we just suck it up and play according to the rules?

Seems to me we went thru this a while ago. I happen to agree with this policy, due only to the persistance of DC legal staff. Remember everyone...Okie did not pull this out of his ass, if he mentioned it you can be assured that it IS an issue, its not his rule, it is a BOD position, and I think a responsable one.

Don't agree....run for the BOD and hang your cheese in the wind.

Props to Terry

Rev

[casm]

Originally Posted by Rev Den

I happen to agree with this policy, due only to the persistance of DC legal staff.

Speaking of DCX' persistence:

http://natecovington.com/jeep/service_manuals.htm

Just in case anyone was wondering if yes, Virginia, there really is a legal department.