<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Hi:
<p>Neil Ward wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><tt>Is there a lawyer in the house? [I know
there is <g>, I</tt>
<br><tt>just wanted to say that].</tt></blockquote>
Guilty as charged. BUT, I defer completely to the other lawyer in
our group -- Heidi is an actual intellectual property lawyer. I just
buy & sell companies & handle financings in public offerings.
Nothing terribly useful for us.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><tt>I imagine the problems over at Yahoo have something
to do with the</tt>
<br><tt>programmers tinkering with the facilities in some sort of preamble
to</tt>
<br><tt>the merger with e-groups. There are just too many weird things</tt>
<br><tt>happening for it to be anything else.</tt></blockquote>
Makes sense to me. They didn't have any truly believable explanation
for what had happened. I'm also not entirely confident that they
will call me back. But, believe me, I will keep following up on the
matter.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><tt>Having got that libellous statement off my chest,
I wanted to bring</tt>
<br><tt>up the fact that our archives are slightly more exposed on a public,</tt>
<br><tt>and searchable, web site. As we have made some fairly choice</tt>
<br><tt>assessments of N. K. Stouffer's character, for example, could we
get</tt>
<br><tt>into difficulties?</tt></blockquote>
Again, I'll defer to Heidi. But, I'm not sure zoom.com is any more
public or any more troublesome than Yahoo in that regard. People
can lurk & read our messages without joining the Club (I *think*).
I hope I'm not speaking out of turn on that point -- I'm fairly certain
we have open archives so that people can evaluate whether to join or not
(but I could be totally making that up). But, I'm not sure there's
any real cause for concern on those grounds. Plus, I don't honestly think
anyone has said anything truly libelous -- nasty (yes), analytical about
her claims (yes) & judgmental (yes). But, libel . . . .well,
Heidi can answer better than I.
<p>Penny</html>