My Lawyers Made Me Do It
I hate to be all legalistic and stuff, but these days you really have to cover your back, so at my lawyer’s insistence I have drafted Terms of Use for this blog. It’s just the usual boilerplate stuff, nothing to see here.
UPDATE: Thus far, the proposed terms appear to be going over like a ton of bricks. There’s just no pleasing some people.
June 1st, 2005 at 7:56 am
Speaking of user guidelines
Xrlq has revised his to reflect the realities of the times. I suppose it’s time to overhaul mine, which have the virtue of inclusiveness, but which aren’t even slightly amusing….
June 1st, 2005 at 10:41 am
Sounds like Terms of Abuse to me.
But, what do i know I am not an attorney.
June 1st, 2005 at 12:32 pm
So if I use 76 words, are ya gonna sue me??????
June 1st, 2005 at 4:10 pm
[...] quotation is 76 words long, and I didn’t include a link! HA! The terms of use are a good joke. I particularly enjoy #14. [...]
June 1st, 2005 at 5:18 pm
Hey, what have you got against the Family Research Council.
June 1st, 2005 at 5:38 pm
This.
June 1st, 2005 at 5:50 pm
Xrlq:
Isn’t there supposed to be some check box or something like that so your silly, simple, ignorant and irrational (collectively, the “crazy”) subscribers, patrons and viewers (collectively, the “readers”) can affirmatively indicate their acceptance of your terms of use (collectively, “a good joke”)?
Just trying to help.
Hope the link worked..
June 1st, 2005 at 6:57 pm
So, (and not to be too difficult because hey I mean who really wants to get into an argument or even a civil disagreement with xrlq) evidently the FRC says “Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV,” says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.
“Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex,” . And for this the FRC is determined to be a part of the lunatic fringe?
FWIW, the article’s author states “In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination,” but FRC just at this point is voicing concerns. The FRC themselves haven’t stated their positions yet.
Just as importantly, every vaccine has negative side effects, some of which haven’t been completely linked and what not. HPV is easily avoidable, and while the availability of a vaccination is valuable, a mass vaccination is easily different and to me seems like it could be reasonably read as attempting to achieve some other end (allowing greater sexual license). (If a woman wants to be sexually licentious fine, offer her the vaccine, but why cause all women, including the virtuous to suffer on account of the licentious; of course, that has been the affect of the woman’s lib movement and feminism for the past 40 years.)
June 1st, 2005 at 7:17 pm
Of course we just now come to find out that the Birth Control Pill may permanently reduce a woman’s sex drive…
But the liberal elite can’t let anything get in the way of how great everything that possibly leads to greatly sexual licentiousness is.
June 1st, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Some suggested additions:
16. I’m rubber, you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me, and sticks to you.
17. So there.
June 1st, 2005 at 8:54 pm
Joel, I still think the FRC’s apparent opposition to vaccine is hella-stupid, but will grant that it doesn’t put them in the same boat as al-Qaeda, NOW or the ACLU. Accordingly, I’ve removed them from the definition.
June 2nd, 2005 at 5:53 am
Thanks X, I agree with you that, if the FRC does come out against vaccination for those who want it, it is hella-stupid.
To be honest, I’m just a little perhaps, over-sensative about how Christian groups are portrayed in the media, especially since the whole “Dobson is crazy, he thinks Spongebob is gay” thing got big, something he never said.
Perhaps I’m a little paranoid, but to me it seems there’s a concerted effort to damage Dobson and Focus on the Family in the media, the FRC I’m less concerned about, but as far as I know, they have some history with FotF.
Consider, how John Cole views FotF & Dobson for what I can see as very thin reasons, but hey there’s got to be some bogeyman.
June 2nd, 2005 at 9:34 am
Well, it doesn’t seem too much worse than most EULAs. At least *you* didn’t ask for first born children. :-)
June 2nd, 2005 at 9:06 pm
Can I get the appropriate amount of mortar mix and some rebar along with that ton of bricks?
June 7th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
If this is sarcasm, it’s a classic. If it’s real, it’s insane. No deep linking of a blog?! You gotta be kidding. I thought that’s why you provide permalinks. And if I can’t deep link, how would I provide the link to as required by paragraph 2?
And lawyers wonder why they have a bad name.
Shaking head…walking away…