🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <EvCHKJ.C4B.0.hotlips@GTS.Net>, bdb@GTS.Net says...
>
>        Um, Marc, I don't think you quite heard what he is
>        saying.  He's pointing out that if improperly worded,
>        such a document could in fact bring *more* liability
>        to the TFN.  Perhaps this is true, perhaps not - but
>        given the facts of situations like the Prodigy case,
>        his warning that sound legal advice is needed in this
>        area seems prudent indeed.
>
Ok, help me out here, as this is an honest question to the part of this 
counter-argument that I don't understand:

How can the re-stating of Canadian Laws, already in existance, get us into 
trouble or make us liable?

We already reserve the right to terminate accounts for any reason we see fit 
(though that power has only been excercised a couple of times, to my knowledge, 
and apparantly for (what the board felt was) good reason. 

The draft AUP sets out a list of actions the board MAY take, if any action is 
taken at all. The actions are, IMO, quite reasonable, including; warnings, 
referral to enforcement agencies, referral to legal experts, arbitration, 
suspension, and termination. (I feel like I should be saying all of this with a 
Schwarzzennegellian accent)

How does this make us *more* liable?


-- 
Marc Bissonnette
InternAlysis
Corporate Internet Research and Results!
http://www.internalysis.com