"tjab" wrote in message
news:g0v4lq$73d@rac2.wam.umd.edu...
> In article ,
> Larry wrote:
>>In article <69ggbhF336tu3U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
>>
>>> Larry wrote:
>>> > In article
>>> > , MB
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In article
>>> >> , Larry
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>> Have you even read the TOS of you newsserver and isp?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I have never accessed information in excess of the authorization
>>> >>> granted to me by my ISP. Have you?
>>> >>
>>> >> How would you know unless you have completely read the terms of
>>> >> service to find out what actions are permissible? Plus I did not
>>> >> see in the indictment any reference to them trying to get personal
>>> >> information about the victim.
>>> >>
>>> >> Plus this hinges on one knowing what the TOS is, and EVERYONE just
>>> >> clicks a box acknowledging the TOS. The TOS should not be valid if
>>> >> you can just click a box to acknowledge knowledge.
>>> >
>>> > How is this different from saying that a written contract shouldn't be
>>> > valid if you can just go to the last page and sign it without reading
>>> > it?
>>> >
>>> > We can't force others to read or understand things. What we can do is
>>> > require objective, concrete actions that are manifestations of that
>>> > understanding. If someone willfully claims to have read or understand
>>> > something that they didn't read or don't understand, there's nothing
>>> > the law can (or should, IMHO) do to protect them.
>>> >
>>> > What does that mean? When you sign up for MySpace or an account
>>> > virtually anywhere, you have to click a box that usually says
>>> > something like "clicking here notes your acceptance of the TOS."
>>> > Some sites habev an extra layer of assurance by not letting you check
>>> > the box until you click the link to the TOS or scroll to the bottom
>>> > of the TOS or the like, but they can't force you to read it.
>>> >
>>> > If you check the box without reading the TOS, you're setting yourself
>>> > up for problems, since you don't even know what you're agreeing with.
>>> > Why should the law protect you in this situation?
>>>
>>> By replying to my posting, you, Lyin' Larry, contractually agree
>>> to the following terms and conditions:
>>>
>>> 1) You will eat one pound of human excrement while
>>> typing your response
>>> 2) You will do the above with a Chiquita bannana shoved
>>> up your ass.
>>>
>>> Failure to abide by these terms and conditions under the
>>> penalty of criminal felony prosecution.
>>>
>>> If you don't accept the above terms and conditions, then
>>> do not post a reply. Your reply shall be deemed an acceptance
>>> without modification or condition.
>>
>>I'm writing this response without abiding by either of your terms and
>>conditions.
>
> Can you prove it?
ROTFLMAO !!!
|