BG> David, at 19:14 on May 30 1995, you wrote to Bill 
 BG> Grimsley...

AWL> No, "legally" you haven't been part of FidoNet until now, 
AWL> of course now you are part of it, you could find yourself 
AWL> paying 1/N640(count) of N640s costs etc if anyone every 
AWL> sues Fido...

BG> Nope, I've not signed anything, only verbally indicated that 
BG> I have "read and understood" P4 (and I certainly have not 
BG> specifically agreed to abide by its archaic 
BG> recommendations).  Ergo, I'd really like to see them try...

DD> So would I.

 BG> I saw my local solicitor having a smoke outside his office 
 BG> in the Marsden Shopping Centre yesterday (his secretary is 
 BG> a non-smoker, and obviously wears the pants in his 
 BG> practice) and in general conversation, asked him about 
 BG> Alex's comments.  Didn't get an answer though, as he was 
 BG> laughing too much.  |-)

Check how much he knows about the field first, there's a lot of them who
haven't read more than the minimum texts on Associations Law, and it is a
field that has changed a lot in the last decade... Actually I'm being a bit
over-the-top on the 1/N640th line, most likely the *Cs involved would be
held responsible for any debts/damages... Especially if their action was
without knowledge and (tacit) approval of the "membership."

An Unincorporated Association is like a partnership with a flux of
membership... It has no separate (legal) existance, but can be treated as
an entity as a short-hand for the individuals who make it up. Any suit is
against those individuals, but the Membership List is what determines who
is and is not a party to the action...

...Alex.
(Pagan & Proud)

---