[email protected] writes:
>
>So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
>municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal government
>lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver of
>liability.
Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal
government in any of my message.
My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that
people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it *truly*
means, and *can* mean.
If a person is uncomfortable signing a legally binding document, then they
shouldn't do it. Period. It makes no difference who the originator of
that document might be. Of one thing you can be certain, if someone,
anyone, wants you to release them of liability, there *is* a reason they
have that desire; matters not to you if it is based on anything in your
own life. Whether it might adversely affect you at some future date is
your decision to make. But on the chance it happens, say ten years down
the line, don't bitch about it. This type of thing happens on rental
agreements (do *you* always read the rental agreement "hard stuff" printed
on the back of the rental form you sign when you rent equipment, a car,
etc.?) which can get the poor soul who was in a hurry and accepted the
presentor's "It's just the standard agreement" into trouble. There is no
such thing as standard.
Again, a person is prudent in being very careful what is signed,
especially in releasing liability of a third party which is exactly the
end result of some of those documents being discussed. If you are to sign
one of those discussed and I go to work for that agency, I can say
whatever I please about you and there's not a damn thing you can do about
it; the final test is that you signed releasing the agency and all of its
employees and agents from liability. Signing is easy, reading is not; we
should do more reading for comprehension.
Our local building maintenance code originally included a proposed
ordinance to allow "no holes on the property" with no definition of what a
hole is. That is one example of folks not paying attention. Yes, it was
corrected before it was enacted as was "no lumber stored on the property
without a current building permit" and "no vegetation over 18 inches in
height." The writers had a specific thing in mind but didn't look at what
they actually wrote!
Glenna
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
>> Glenna:
>> Nice.
>>
>> For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.
>>
>> Bob
>
> And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.
>
> todd
..along with all the sexual predators who employ them. And the Homeland
Security folks. And nervous town lawyers and officials. And their insurance
companies. And parents, lots of parents.
It just ain't so simple, is it?
Bob
"Glenna Rose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] writes:
>>
>>So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
>>municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal government
>>lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver of
>>liability.
>
> Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal
> government in any of my message.
>
> My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that
> people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it *truly*
> means, and *can* mean.
>
> If a person is uncomfortable signing a legally binding document, then they
> shouldn't do it. Period. It makes no difference who the originator of
> that document might be. Of one thing you can be certain, if someone,
> anyone, wants you to release them of liability, there *is* a reason they
> have that desire; matters not to you if it is based on anything in your
> own life. Whether it might adversely affect you at some future date is
> your decision to make. But on the chance it happens, say ten years down
> the line, don't bitch about it. This type of thing happens on rental
> agreements (do *you* always read the rental agreement "hard stuff" printed
> on the back of the rental form you sign when you rent equipment, a car,
> etc.?) which can get the poor soul who was in a hurry and accepted the
> presentor's "It's just the standard agreement" into trouble. There is no
> such thing as standard.
>
> Again, a person is prudent in being very careful what is signed,
> especially in releasing liability of a third party which is exactly the
> end result of some of those documents being discussed. If you are to sign
> one of those discussed and I go to work for that agency, I can say
> whatever I please about you and there's not a damn thing you can do about
> it; the final test is that you signed releasing the agency and all of its
> employees and agents from liability. Signing is easy, reading is not; we
> should do more reading for comprehension.
>
> Our local building maintenance code originally included a proposed
> ordinance to allow "no holes on the property" with no definition of what a
> hole is. That is one example of folks not paying attention. Yes, it was
> corrected before it was enacted as was "no lumber stored on the property
> without a current building permit" and "no vegetation over 18 inches in
> height." The writers had a specific thing in mind but didn't look at what
> they actually wrote!
>
> Glenna
Glenna:
Nice.
For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.
Bob
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Schmall wrote:
>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Todd Fatheree wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
>>>>> Glenna:
>>>>> Nice.
>>>>>
>>>>> For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>> And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.
>>>
>>> And the bottom line is, how bad does he want the job?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> todd
>>
>> That's easy--not that much. It's a 6-night evening course teaching
>> astronomy. Not the core of my personal or financial existence.
>
> Then why are you so irate about it?
I'm not irate. I've had to make a value judgment about whether to surrender
some of my privacy in exchange for a temporary part-time job. I've decided
that it is not worth it. That's the personal level. Deeper than that, I've
been thinking about how much authority a citizen should cede to his
government. You know, the old Social Contract thing. Tom Veatch referred to
Ben Franklin's statment about giving up liberty for security and having
neither, and it fits the occasion perfectly.
Bob
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
> Glenna:
> Nice.
>
> For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.
>
> Bob
And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.
todd
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:22:48 -0600, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
> ... snip
>>I was hardly irate, so don't attribute that to me. My concern was not with
>>the community taking reasonable precautions to protect its citizens and
>>its
>>corporate self. I feel that what information was sought was far beyond
>>anything necessary to determine my qualifications. In fact, I have been
>>asked to grant virtually unrestricted access to personal information, much
>>of it completely irrevelant to the job. I was also asked to waive my
>>rights
>>seek redress if the information was mishandled. I doubt that the form is
>>"typical." If it is, we're just that much closer to a police state.
>>
>
> Actually, if you think about it, that's not quite true. In something
> close to a police state, they would simply be asking you (police state --
> they would be demanding) for the information and not worrying about
> whether
> you cared about how it was used or misused.
I did not say this was a police state. Taking your example, it IS something
close to a police state when the information is required in order to get the
job--that's coercion, however mild. Once again, I'll say that the
authorities are justified in conducting a background check for anyone in a
sensitive position. My concern is that they are asking for too much leeway
in seeking it and are asking me sign away my rights.
Bob
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Glenna Rose wrote:
>
>> [email protected] writes:
>>>
>>>So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
>>>municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal
>>>government
>>>lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver of
>>>liability.
>>
>> Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal
>> government in any of my message.
>
> Silly me, assuming that you intended your post to have some relevance to
> the
> concerns raised in the post to which I was responding.
>
>> My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that
>> people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it *truly*
>> means, and *can* mean.
>
> While this is perfectly true, it does not mean that one should be as irate
> as the poster to whom I responded when handed a typical government form.
I was hardly irate, so don't attribute that to me. My concern was not with
the community taking reasonable precautions to protect its citizens and its
corporate self. I feel that what information was sought was far beyond
anything necessary to determine my qualifications. In fact, I have been
asked to grant virtually unrestricted access to personal information, much
of it completely irrevelant to the job. I was also asked to waive my rights
seek redress if the information was mishandled. I doubt that the form is
"typical." If it is, we're just that much closer to a police state.
Bob Schmall
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Schmall wrote:
>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Glenna Rose wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
>>>>>municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal
>>>>>government
>>>>>lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver
>>>>>of
>>>>>liability.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal
>>>> government in any of my message.
>>>
>>> Silly me, assuming that you intended your post to have some relevance to
>>> the
>>> concerns raised in the post to which I was responding.
>>>
>>>> My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that
>>>> people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it
>>>> *truly* means, and *can* mean.
>>>
>>> While this is perfectly true, it does not mean that one should be as
>>> irate as the poster to whom I responded when handed a typical government
>>> form.
>>
>> I was hardly irate, so don't attribute that to me. My concern was not
>> with
>> the community taking reasonable precautions to protect its citizens and
>> its corporate self. I feel that what information was sought was far
>> beyond
>> anything necessary to determine my qualifications. In fact, I have been
>> asked to grant virtually unrestricted access to personal information,
>> much
>> of it completely irrevelant to the job. I was also asked to waive my
>> rights seek redress if the information was mishandled. I doubt that the
>> form is "typical." If it is, we're just that much closer to a police
>> state.
>
> Take that form, and ask yourself how you would have reworded it as a
> printed
> generic form to address your concerns. If you can come up with better
> wording that will pass their lawyers, they may thank you for it. It
> sounds
> like a typical generic form to me. Perhaps you haven't done much work for
> the government.
At this rate, I'm not likely to...
John I'll be glad to fax you a copy of the authorization. Please email the
number.
Bob
Glenna Rose wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>>
>>So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
>>municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal government
>>lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver of
>>liability.
>
> Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal
> government in any of my message.
Silly me, assuming that you intended your post to have some relevance to the
concerns raised in the post to which I was responding.
> My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that
> people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it *truly*
> means, and *can* mean.
While this is perfectly true, it does not mean that one should be as irate
as the poster to whom I responded when handed a typical government form.
<remainder of diatribe snipped>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Todd Fatheree wrote:
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
>> Glenna:
>> Nice.
>>
>> For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.
>>
>> Bob
>
> And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.
And the bottom line is, how bad does he want the job?
>
> todd
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Bob Schmall wrote:
>
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
>>> Glenna:
>>> Nice.
>>>
>>> For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.
>>
>> todd
>
> ..along with all the sexual predators who employ them. And the Homeland
> Security folks. And nervous town lawyers and officials. And their
> insurance companies. And parents, lots of parents.
> It just ain't so simple, is it?
I'm sorry, but that's not making any sense.
> Bob
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Bob Schmall wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Glenna Rose wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] writes:
>>>>
>>>>So tell us a "horror story" in which someone signed a typical
>>>>municipal-government waiver of liability and then the municipal
>>>>government
>>>>lied about them to a third party and defended itself using the waiver of
>>>>liability.
>>>
>>> Hmmm. I don't recall saying *anything* in my writing about a municipal
>>> government in any of my message.
>>
>> Silly me, assuming that you intended your post to have some relevance to
>> the
>> concerns raised in the post to which I was responding.
>>
>>> My point was, in case you missed it since I didn't spell it out, that
>>> people should *read* what they sign and try to understand what it
>>> *truly* means, and *can* mean.
>>
>> While this is perfectly true, it does not mean that one should be as
>> irate as the poster to whom I responded when handed a typical government
>> form.
>
> I was hardly irate, so don't attribute that to me. My concern was not with
> the community taking reasonable precautions to protect its citizens and
> its corporate self. I feel that what information was sought was far beyond
> anything necessary to determine my qualifications. In fact, I have been
> asked to grant virtually unrestricted access to personal information, much
> of it completely irrevelant to the job. I was also asked to waive my
> rights seek redress if the information was mishandled. I doubt that the
> form is "typical." If it is, we're just that much closer to a police
> state.
Take that form, and ask yourself how you would have reworded it as a printed
generic form to address your concerns. If you can come up with better
wording that will pass their lawyers, they may thank you for it. It sounds
like a typical generic form to me. Perhaps you haven't done much work for
the government.
>
> Bob Schmall
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Bob Schmall wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Todd Fatheree wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
>>>> Glenna:
>>>> Nice.
>>>>
>>>> For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>> And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.
>>
>> And the bottom line is, how bad does he want the job?
>>
>>>
>>> todd
>
> That's easy--not that much. It's a 6-night evening course teaching
> astronomy. Not the core of my personal or financial existence.
Then why are you so irate about it?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:04:33 GMT, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:22:48 -0600, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> ... snip
>>>I was hardly irate, so don't attribute that to me. My concern was not with
>>>the community taking reasonable precautions to protect its citizens and
>>>its
>>>corporate self. I feel that what information was sought was far beyond
>>>anything necessary to determine my qualifications. In fact, I have been
>>>asked to grant virtually unrestricted access to personal information, much
>>>of it completely irrevelant to the job. I was also asked to waive my
>>>rights
>>>seek redress if the information was mishandled. I doubt that the form is
>>>"typical." If it is, we're just that much closer to a police state.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, if you think about it, that's not quite true. In something
>> close to a police state, they would simply be asking you (police state --
>> they would be demanding) for the information and not worrying about
>> whether
>> you cared about how it was used or misused.
>
>I did not say this was a police state. Taking your example, it IS something
>close to a police state when the information is required in order to get the
>job--that's coercion, however mild. Once again, I'll say that the
>authorities are justified in conducting a background check for anyone in a
>sensitive position. My concern is that they are asking for too much leeway
>in seeking it and are asking me sign away my rights.
>
I didn't say you said it was a police state, thus my comment about "in
close to a police state they would just ask and not care ..." As far as
your conclusion, I certainly agree, it seems like a pretty heavy-handed
agreement (sort of a government equivalent of a EULA -- you give up all
your rights, they keep all theirs and more). ... and you are right, it is
coercion, particularly if everbody starts doing this. Certainly not part
of a trend heading in the right direction.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:22:48 -0600, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
... snip
>I was hardly irate, so don't attribute that to me. My concern was not with
>the community taking reasonable precautions to protect its citizens and its
>corporate self. I feel that what information was sought was far beyond
>anything necessary to determine my qualifications. In fact, I have been
>asked to grant virtually unrestricted access to personal information, much
>of it completely irrevelant to the job. I was also asked to waive my rights
>seek redress if the information was mishandled. I doubt that the form is
>"typical." If it is, we're just that much closer to a police state.
>
Actually, if you think about it, that's not quite true. In something
close to a police state, they would simply be asking you (police state --
they would be demanding) for the information and not worrying about whether
you cared about how it was used or misused.
>Bob Schmall
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
> >> Glenna:
> >> Nice.
> >>
> >> For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >
> > And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.
> >
> > todd
>
> ..along with all the sexual predators who employ them. And the Homeland
> Security folks. And nervous town lawyers and officials. And their
insurance
> companies. And parents, lots of parents.
> It just ain't so simple, is it?
>
> Bob
Oh, I forgot. The trial lawyers are just innocent bystanders. They don't
have a powerful lobby in Congress to keep laws written the way they like.
todd
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Todd Fatheree wrote:
>
>> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
>>> Glenna:
>>> Nice.
>>>
>>> For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.
>
> And the bottom line is, how bad does he want the job?
>
>>
>> todd
That's easy--not that much. It's a 6-night evening course teaching
astronomy. Not the core of my personal or financial existence.
Bob
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>>
>> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:0keLd.137937
>> >> Glenna:
>> >> Nice.
>> >>
>> >> For me it boils down to: it may be legal, but it ain't right.
>> >>
>> >> Bob
>> >
>> > And again, you can thank the trial lawyers for making it necessary.
>> >
>> > todd
>>
>> ..along with all the sexual predators who employ them. And the Homeland
>> Security folks. And nervous town lawyers and officials. And their
> insurance
>> companies. And parents, lots of parents.
>> It just ain't so simple, is it?
>>
>> Bob
>
> Oh, I forgot. The trial lawyers are just innocent bystanders. They don't
> have a powerful lobby in Congress to keep laws written the way they like.
>
> todd
Didn't say that and didn't mean it. What I meant is that there are lots of
influences here, that things just ain't so simple that we can blame just one
set of people. George Will, a thoughtful conservative, said "The study of
history is the best way and, other than by bitter experience, perhaps the
only way to be inoculated against the terrible simplifiers, those people who
lead nations into trouble."
Another way to phrase it: there's a simple answer for everything, and it's
always wrong.
Bob
>
>
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:10:34 -0500, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>And the bottom line is, how bad does he want the job?
For some weird reason that brings to my mind a comment by Benjamin Franklin,
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve
neither liberty or security".
(Not sure that's an exact quote, but perhaps it captures the essence of Ben's
statement.)
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA