Fact and Fiction in nz.comp

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by H.O.G, Aug 21, 2005.

  1. H.O.G

    H.O.G Guest

    Usenet has changed over the last few years, and especially technical
    newsgroups such as nz.comp.

    There have always been trolls. There has always been flaming. But the
    signal to noise ratio in groups such as nz.comp has never been lower
    than it has over the last year or two.

    From a small group of people believing that a NZ computing group was
    an appropriate place to discuss international motor racing in depth,
    in many threads, and over a long period of time, to idiots arguing
    incorrect and easily disprovable ascertions ad nauseum, this group is
    slowly turning to custard. There have been 2 such occurances in the
    last 2 days that I have been involved in (someone claiming that
    Antivir had "the same rate of detection as Norton's does according to
    official testing at independent test facilities", which was obviously
    easily disprovable, and someone else saying that you can use any odd
    heatsink and thermal compound on a processor without voiding the
    warranty), and I know there have been a heck of a lot of others that
    I've seen, but haven't bothered to get involved in.

    Sometimes people stick their fingers in their ears and just wont
    listen to others that obviously know what they are talking about, and
    sometimes they just quietly go away. They never, however, apologise
    for making a fool of themselves, or for abusing those trying to help
    them, though.

    There's two points about this that I'm interested to hear other
    people's opinion on.

    The first is, is this just a sign of the times? As we all know, the
    industry is full of cowboys who think they know everything, don't base
    their recommendations or comments on fact, have a fuzzy understanding
    of fact and fiction, and lack the experience, qualifications and
    training that used to be a part of the game. Is this spilling over
    into Usenet just a further sign of the decline of our profession?

    And secondly, what of the legal ramifications? For instance, I had a
    couple of people arguing thick and thin that using any old
    heatsink/fan and thermal paste on an AMD processor would not void the
    warranty, and that they didn't have to use the heatsink/fan that came
    with the processor. It mattered little to them that I was speaking
    fact, am AMD Gold Certified, have dealt with literally thousands of
    AMD processors, that this was AMD's stated position, and they were
    just spouting forward an opinion, they were still "right" and would
    argue come hell or high water. That in itself doesn't worry me (we all
    know the world's full of idiots), but the question is, would they
    become liable if a layman took their advice, smeared thermal paste all
    over their processor, stuffed it, and promptly voided their warranty?

    Obviously "someone said I could in a newsgroup" isn't going to get
    your processor replaced, but would the fact that this is a technical
    group and someone stated their (incorrect) opinion as a fact give rise
    for the possibility of taking legal action to recover losses incurred
    by following their advice? I'm not asking whether you think this is
    right or wrong or whether it would ever happen, just whether or not
    this is a plausible scenario. For instance, if a computer shop gave
    this advice, they would technically be liable for any losses incurred
    by following this advice, whether they charged for it or not. Why
    would this not be the case on a newsgroup?

    Just interested in other people's opinion.
     
    H.O.G, Aug 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. H.O.G

    Bret Guest

    On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:46:48 +1200, H.O.G <> wrote:

    >
    >Usenet has changed over the last few years, and especially technical
    >newsgroups such as nz.comp.
    >
    >There have always been trolls. There has always been flaming. But the
    >signal to noise ratio in groups such as nz.comp has never been lower
    >than it has over the last year or two.
    >
    >From a small group of people believing that a NZ computing group was
    >an appropriate place to discuss international motor racing in depth,
    >in many threads, and over a long period of time, to idiots arguing
    >incorrect and easily disprovable ascertions ad nauseum, this group is
    >slowly turning to custard. There have been 2 such occurances in the
    >last 2 days that I have been involved in (someone claiming that
    >Antivir had "the same rate of detection as Norton's does according to
    >official testing at independent test facilities", which was obviously
    >easily disprovable, and someone else saying that you can use any odd
    >heatsink and thermal compound on a processor without voiding the
    >warranty), and I know there have been a heck of a lot of others that
    >I've seen, but haven't bothered to get involved in.
    >
    >Sometimes people stick their fingers in their ears and just wont
    >listen to others that obviously know what they are talking about, and
    >sometimes they just quietly go away. They never, however, apologise
    >for making a fool of themselves, or for abusing those trying to help
    >them, though.
    >
    >There's two points about this that I'm interested to hear other
    >people's opinion on.
    >
    >The first is, is this just a sign of the times? As we all know, the
    >industry is full of cowboys who think they know everything, don't base
    >their recommendations or comments on fact, have a fuzzy understanding
    >of fact and fiction, and lack the experience, qualifications and
    >training that used to be a part of the game. Is this spilling over
    >into Usenet just a further sign of the decline of our profession?
    >
    >And secondly, what of the legal ramifications? For instance, I had a
    >couple of people arguing thick and thin that using any old
    >heatsink/fan and thermal paste on an AMD processor would not void the
    >warranty, and that they didn't have to use the heatsink/fan that came
    >with the processor. It mattered little to them that I was speaking
    >fact, am AMD Gold Certified, have dealt with literally thousands of
    >AMD processors, that this was AMD's stated position, and they were
    >just spouting forward an opinion, they were still "right" and would
    >argue come hell or high water. That in itself doesn't worry me (we all
    >know the world's full of idiots), but the question is, would they
    >become liable if a layman took their advice, smeared thermal paste all
    >over their processor, stuffed it, and promptly voided their warranty?
    >
    >Obviously "someone said I could in a newsgroup" isn't going to get
    >your processor replaced, but would the fact that this is a technical
    >group and someone stated their (incorrect) opinion as a fact give rise
    >for the possibility of taking legal action to recover losses incurred
    >by following their advice? I'm not asking whether you think this is
    >right or wrong or whether it would ever happen, just whether or not
    >this is a plausible scenario. For instance, if a computer shop gave
    >this advice, they would technically be liable for any losses incurred
    >by following this advice, whether they charged for it or not. Why
    >would this not be the case on a newsgroup?
    >
    >Just interested in other people's opinion.



    Just let all the silent readers decide for themselves, don't worry
    about your ego, present the facts as you see them.
     
    Bret, Aug 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. H.O.G

    steve Guest

    H.O.G wrote:

    > The first is, is this just a sign of the times? As we all know, the
    > industry is full of cowboys who think they know everything, don't base
    > their recommendations or comments on fact, have a fuzzy understanding
    > of fact and fiction, and lack the experience, qualifications and
    > training that used to be a part of the game. Is this spilling over
    > into Usenet just a further sign of the decline of our profession?


    USENET began to degrade the moment the non-computer literate folks joined us
    all on the Internet.

    That would be about 1995-96.

    Since then, most newsgroups are inhabited to a greater or lesser degree by
    psychiatric out-patients and various types of obsessive-compulsives.
     
    steve, Aug 21, 2005
    #3
  4. H.O.G

    Max Burke Guest

    > H.O.G scribbled:
    > Usenet has changed over the last few years, and especially technical
    > newsgroups such as nz.comp.


    I only have one response....

    You're taking Newsgroup discussions WAAAAYY to seroiusly... (IMO)

    --

    Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
     
    Max Burke, Aug 21, 2005
    #4
  5. H.O.G

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:46:48 +1200, H.O.G wrote:

    > Just interested in other people's opinion.


    Yeah right!

    Only so long as it is not "communist/socialist" or in any way "anti
    capitalist" eh?

    Here you are complaining of the very same thing that you yourself do in
    other newsgroups.


    Bling Bling

    --
    Fink: "The Linux market is growing 30% to 35% a year."
     
    Bling-Bling, Aug 21, 2005
    #5
  6. H.O.G

    Philip Guest

    H.O.G wrote:
    > Usenet has changed over the last few years, and especially technical
    > newsgroups such as nz.comp.
    >
    > There have always been trolls. There has always been flaming. But the
    > signal to noise ratio in groups such as nz.comp has never been lower
    > than it has over the last year or two.


    (snip)

    The reality is that some people don't know how to behave. We had flaming
    and trolls in FidoNet back in the 1980s - and on Essex MUD, and on
    Shades, and on Usenet and MicroLink and CompuServe and CiX. It happens.

    It happens in any meeting where the wetware walks in the door with what
    passes for its mind already made up, and won't be bothered with the facts.

    And if you think it's bad here, you should see the festering
    disease-ridden swamp that is nz.general or nz.politics. There are people
    in there that are seriously scary.

    Online discussion has become commoditised, like computers and software.
    If we want to return to the closed society of early Usenet then we
    either turn this into a moderated feed, or start a separate moderated
    discussion someplace else.

    Way to go?


    Philip
     
    Philip, Aug 21, 2005
    #6
  7. In article <>,
    H.O.G <> wrote:
    >
    >Usenet has changed over the last few years, and especially technical
    >newsgroups such as nz.comp.
    >
    >There have always been trolls. There has always been flaming. But the
    >signal to noise ratio in groups such as nz.comp has never been lower
    >than it has over the last year or two.


    In my opinion:
    This is a consequence of the general exodus from nz.general caused by
    the poor signal/noise ratio there. This has led to an increase in general
    discussion type posts in the technical groups. A common answer to this is
    for groups of like-interested (not necessarily like-minded) people to set up
    a Google mailing list or their own nntp server and disappear from the radar.
    I belong to several such groups, some with hundreds of active posters.

    >The first is, is this just a sign of the times? As we all know, the
    >industry is full of cowboys who think they know everything, don't base
    >their recommendations or comments on fact, have a fuzzy understanding
    >of fact and fiction, and lack the experience, qualifications and
    >training that used to be a part of the game. Is this spilling over
    >into Usenet just a further sign of the decline of our profession?


    That can be summed up as, "Those of you who think you know everything are
    annoying to us who do." It's always been that way. Someone else pointed out
    in this thread that things went downhill when non-technical people began to
    use Usenet. The sad part is that it's only the geek fringe of the
    non-technical set who are here - the rest of them are still in IRC and
    web-forum land.

    >And secondly, what of the legal ramifications?


    That's been discussed in newsgroups many times over the years.
    If you're clearly working for a business, posting from a business account
    (such as Nathan Mercer) and there is no disclaimer on your post, your posts
    may be considered to be "official". Otherwise, you're just another person
    with an asshole - sorry, an opinion. (In my opinion, of course.)

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286
     
    Spam Blackhole, Aug 21, 2005
    #7
  8. H.O.G

    Harry Guest

    H.O.G wrote:

    >
    > Usenet has changed over the last few years, and especially technical
    > newsgroups such as nz.comp.
    >
    > There have always been trolls. There has always been flaming. But the
    > signal to noise ratio in groups such as nz.comp has never been lower
    > than it has over the last year or two.
    >
    > From a small group of people believing that a NZ computing group was
    > an appropriate place to discuss international motor racing in depth,
    > in many threads, and over a long period of time, to idiots arguing
    > incorrect and easily disprovable ascertions ad nauseum, this group is
    > slowly turning to custard. There have been 2 such occurances in the
    > last 2 days that I have been involved in (someone claiming that
    > Antivir had "the same rate of detection as Norton's does according to
    > official testing at independent test facilities", which was obviously
    > easily disprovable, and someone else saying that you can use any odd
    > heatsink and thermal compound on a processor without voiding the
    > warranty), and I know there have been a heck of a lot of others that
    > I've seen, but haven't bothered to get involved in.
    >
    > Sometimes people stick their fingers in their ears and just wont
    > listen to others that obviously know what they are talking about, and
    > sometimes they just quietly go away. They never, however, apologise
    > for making a fool of themselves, or for abusing those trying to help
    > them, though.
    >
    > There's two points about this that I'm interested to hear other
    > people's opinion on.
    >
    > The first is, is this just a sign of the times? As we all know, the
    > industry is full of cowboys who think they know everything, don't base
    > their recommendations or comments on fact, have a fuzzy understanding
    > of fact and fiction, and lack the experience, qualifications and
    > training that used to be a part of the game. Is this spilling over
    > into Usenet just a further sign of the decline of our profession?


    You have just added more useless noise.
    BTW it really means that everyone has a computer these days
    so nz.comp is hardly the reserve of professionals.

    >
    > And secondly, what of the legal ramifications? For instance, I had a
    > couple of people arguing thick and thin that using any old
    > heatsink/fan and thermal paste on an AMD processor would not void the
    > warranty, and that they didn't have to use the heatsink/fan that came
    > with the processor. It mattered little to them that I was speaking
    > fact, am AMD Gold Certified, have dealt with literally thousands of
    > AMD processors, that this was AMD's stated position, and they were
    > just spouting forward an opinion, they were still "right" and would
    > argue come hell or high water. That in itself doesn't worry me (we all
    > know the world's full of idiots), but the question is, would they
    > become liable if a layman took their advice, smeared thermal paste all
    > over their processor, stuffed it, and promptly voided their warranty?
    >


    No. Otherwise you'd be suing your lawyer, doctor, politician,
    and supermarket every day for bad advice.

    But if you want AMD's warranty information then you should ask AMD,
    and not this ng. That is obvious isn't it?
    But if you were interested in what actually worked, regardless of whether
    AMD would examine your thermals under a magnifying glass, then this ng
    can provide practical information that works.


    > Obviously "someone said I could in a newsgroup" isn't going to get
    > your processor replaced, but would the fact that this is a technical
    > group and someone stated their (incorrect) opinion as a fact give rise
    > for the possibility of taking legal action to recover losses incurred
    > by following their advice? I'm not asking whether you think this is
    > right or wrong or whether it would ever happen, just whether or not
    > this is a plausible scenario. For instance, if a computer shop gave
    > this advice, they would technically be liable for any losses incurred
    > by following this advice, whether they charged for it or not. Why
    > would this not be the case on a newsgroup?


    You should sue yourself first because you have just advised everybody
    that this is a technical newsgroup. Well it aint. It is just nz.comp.

    >
    > Just interested in other people's opinion.


    Advice is advice, nothing more.
    You cannot sue somebody for stating their opinion.
     
    Harry, Aug 21, 2005
    #8
  9. H.O.G

    akiwi Guest

    On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:30:52 +1200, Max Burke wrote:

    >> H.O.G scribbled:
    >> Usenet has changed over the last few years, and especially technical
    >> newsgroups such as nz.comp.

    >
    >I only have one response....
    >
    >You're taking Newsgroup discussions WAAAAYY to seroiusly... (IMO)


    yeah, I think so too. It's par for the course on usenet that many
    thoughtless uninformed comments get made - you can pick many of them -
    which is not to say that I think the comments by the opposition to H.O.G
    on the heatsink compound issue were invalid - they seemed like a fair
    interpretation of the AMD license to me.

    Usenet is still tremendously useful and this newsgroup is reasonably
    friendly for the most part, and often very entertaining. I asked a
    question about C drive expansion recently and I'm pretty sure a couple
    of responders were representatives of Acronis but pretending to be
    otherwise - that's Usenet!

    akiwi
     
    akiwi, Aug 21, 2005
    #9
  10. H.O.G

    H.O.G Guest

    On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:04:23 +1200, Bling-Bling
    <> spoke these fine words:

    >On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:46:48 +1200, H.O.G wrote:
    >
    >> Just interested in other people's opinion.

    >
    >Yeah right!
    >
    >Only so long as it is not "communist/socialist" or in any way "anti
    >capitalist" eh?
    >
    >Here you are complaining of the very same thing that you yourself do in
    >other newsgroups.
    >

    Wow, here's someone who really can't have a conversation.

    There is a difference between discussing opinion and putting forward
    facts. Whether or not you believe software should all be given away
    free and I believe that it is acceptable to charge people for it is
    different than arguing about whether grass is green.

    Well, maybe not in Blingland...
     
    H.O.G, Aug 21, 2005
    #10
  11. H.O.G

    H.O.G Guest

    On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:30:11 +1200, steve
    <> spoke these fine words:

    >H.O.G wrote:
    >
    >> The first is, is this just a sign of the times? As we all know, the
    >> industry is full of cowboys who think they know everything, don't base
    >> their recommendations or comments on fact, have a fuzzy understanding
    >> of fact and fiction, and lack the experience, qualifications and
    >> training that used to be a part of the game. Is this spilling over
    >> into Usenet just a further sign of the decline of our profession?

    >
    >USENET began to degrade the moment the non-computer literate folks joined us
    >all on the Internet.
    >
    >That would be about 1995-96.
    >
    >Since then, most newsgroups are inhabited to a greater or lesser degree by
    >psychiatric out-patients and various types of obsessive-compulsives.
    >

    Yup. I've always wondered whether Usenet is inhabited by the minority
    of obsessives of our society (with the odd "normal" person as well),
    or whether society is actually brimming full of obsessives who hide it
    well, until confronted with a pseudo-anonymous environment (with the
    odd "normal" person about as well). But I guess that's another
    thread...
     
    H.O.G, Aug 21, 2005
    #11
  12. H.O.G

    H.O.G Guest

    On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:30:52 +1200, "Max Burke"
    <> spoke these fine words:

    >> H.O.G scribbled:
    >> Usenet has changed over the last few years, and especially technical
    >> newsgroups such as nz.comp.

    >
    >I only have one response....
    >
    >You're taking Newsgroup discussions WAAAAYY to seroiusly... (IMO)


    It's just because I care.... ;-)

    You're probably right.
     
    H.O.G, Aug 21, 2005
    #12
  13. H.O.G

    H.O.G Guest

    On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:49:18 +1000, Harry <>
    spoke these fine words:

    >> The first is, is this just a sign of the times? As we all know, the
    >> industry is full of cowboys who think they know everything, don't base
    >> their recommendations or comments on fact, have a fuzzy understanding
    >> of fact and fiction, and lack the experience, qualifications and
    >> training that used to be a part of the game. Is this spilling over
    >> into Usenet just a further sign of the decline of our profession?

    >
    >You have just added more useless noise.


    Hmm, probably quite true...

    >BTW it really means that everyone has a computer these days
    >so nz.comp is hardly the reserve of professionals.


    True, but many of its inhabitants are computing professionals.

    >> And secondly, what of the legal ramifications? For instance, I had a
    >> couple of people arguing thick and thin that using any old
    >> heatsink/fan and thermal paste on an AMD processor would not void the
    >> warranty, and that they didn't have to use the heatsink/fan that came
    >> with the processor. It mattered little to them that I was speaking
    >> fact, am AMD Gold Certified, have dealt with literally thousands of
    >> AMD processors, that this was AMD's stated position, and they were
    >> just spouting forward an opinion, they were still "right" and would
    >> argue come hell or high water. That in itself doesn't worry me (we all
    >> know the world's full of idiots), but the question is, would they
    >> become liable if a layman took their advice, smeared thermal paste all
    >> over their processor, stuffed it, and promptly voided their warranty?
    >>

    >No. Otherwise you'd be suing your lawyer, doctor, politician,
    >and supermarket every day for bad advice.


    People often do sue their lawyers and doctors, actually. It happens
    all the time, although usually by insurance companies.

    >You should sue yourself first because you have just advised everybody
    >that this is a technical newsgroup. Well it aint. It is just nz.comp.


    Hmm, but my interpretation is unlikely to cause loss. If someone could
    prove that my "advice" caused them loss, they would actually have the
    right to test it in court.

    >>
    >> Just interested in other people's opinion.

    >
    >Advice is advice, nothing more.
    >You cannot sue somebody for stating their opinion.


    You can, though, if they are giving professional advice, and this
    advice turns out to be wrong causing loss.

    The question is, is someone giving flagrantly incorrect advice here
    liable? Interesting concept.
     
    H.O.G, Aug 21, 2005
    #13
  14. H.O.G

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    H.O.G wrote:

    >>
    >>Advice is advice, nothing more.
    >>You cannot sue somebody for stating their opinion.

    >
    >
    > You can, though, if they are giving professional advice, and this
    > advice turns out to be wrong causing loss.
    >
    > The question is, is someone giving flagrantly incorrect advice here
    > liable? Interesting concept.


    Unlikely; there's nothing by way of a contractual professional
    relationship.
     
    Roger_Nickel, Aug 21, 2005
    #14
  15. H.O.G

    Harry Guest

    H.O.G wrote:

    > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:49:18 +1000, Harry <>
    > spoke these fine words:
    >
    >>> The first is, is this just a sign of the times? As we all know, the
    >>> industry is full of cowboys who think they know everything, don't base
    >>> their recommendations or comments on fact, have a fuzzy understanding
    >>> of fact and fiction, and lack the experience, qualifications and
    >>> training that used to be a part of the game. Is this spilling over
    >>> into Usenet just a further sign of the decline of our profession?

    >>
    >>You have just added more useless noise.

    >
    > Hmm, probably quite true...
    >
    >>BTW it really means that everyone has a computer these days
    >>so nz.comp is hardly the reserve of professionals.

    >
    > True, but many of its inhabitants are computing professionals.
    >
    >>> And secondly, what of the legal ramifications? For instance, I had a
    >>> couple of people arguing thick and thin that using any old
    >>> heatsink/fan and thermal paste on an AMD processor would not void the
    >>> warranty, and that they didn't have to use the heatsink/fan that came
    >>> with the processor. It mattered little to them that I was speaking
    >>> fact, am AMD Gold Certified, have dealt with literally thousands of
    >>> AMD processors, that this was AMD's stated position, and they were
    >>> just spouting forward an opinion, they were still "right" and would
    >>> argue come hell or high water. That in itself doesn't worry me (we all
    >>> know the world's full of idiots), but the question is, would they
    >>> become liable if a layman took their advice, smeared thermal paste all
    >>> over their processor, stuffed it, and promptly voided their warranty?
    >>>

    >>No. Otherwise you'd be suing your lawyer, doctor, politician,
    >>and supermarket every day for bad advice.

    >
    > People often do sue their lawyers and doctors, actually. It happens
    > all the time, although usually by insurance companies.
    >
    >>You should sue yourself first because you have just advised everybody
    >>that this is a technical newsgroup. Well it aint. It is just nz.comp.

    >
    > Hmm, but my interpretation is unlikely to cause loss. If someone could
    > prove that my "advice" caused them loss, they would actually have the
    > right to test it in court.
    >
    >>>
    >>> Just interested in other people's opinion.

    >>
    >>Advice is advice, nothing more.
    >>You cannot sue somebody for stating their opinion.

    >
    > You can, though, if they are giving professional advice, and this
    > advice turns out to be wrong causing loss.
    >
    > The question is, is someone giving flagrantly incorrect advice here
    > liable? Interesting concept.


    Most professionals make you sign an indemnity.
     
    Harry, Aug 21, 2005
    #15
  16. H.O.G

    H.O.G Guest

    On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:55:57 +1200, Roger_Nickel <>
    spoke these fine words:

    >H.O.G wrote:
    >
    >>>
    >>>Advice is advice, nothing more.
    >>>You cannot sue somebody for stating their opinion.

    >>
    >>
    >> You can, though, if they are giving professional advice, and this
    >> advice turns out to be wrong causing loss.
    >>
    >> The question is, is someone giving flagrantly incorrect advice here
    >> liable? Interesting concept.

    >
    >Unlikely; there's nothing by way of a contractual professional
    >relationship.


    True, but is that needed?

    If someone says "jump in this water", and there is a shark in the
    water, and that person had reason to expect there to be a shark in the
    water, could that person be sued, whether or not there is a
    "contractual professional relationship"?
     
    H.O.G, Aug 21, 2005
    #16
  17. H.O.G

    Harry Guest

    H.O.G wrote:

    > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:55:57 +1200, Roger_Nickel <>
    > spoke these fine words:
    >
    >>H.O.G wrote:
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>>Advice is advice, nothing more.
    >>>>You cannot sue somebody for stating their opinion.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> You can, though, if they are giving professional advice, and this
    >>> advice turns out to be wrong causing loss.
    >>>
    >>> The question is, is someone giving flagrantly incorrect advice here
    >>> liable? Interesting concept.

    >>
    >>Unlikely; there's nothing by way of a contractual professional
    >>relationship.

    >
    > True, but is that needed?
    >
    > If someone says "jump in this water", and there is a shark in the
    > water, and that person had reason to expect there to be a shark in the
    > water, could that person be sued, whether or not there is a
    > "contractual professional relationship"?


    No. If I told you to cut your arm off, and you cut it off, then
    it would be your fault not mine.
     
    Harry, Aug 21, 2005
    #17
  18. H.O.G

    H.O.G Guest

    On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:17:02 +1000, Harry <>
    spoke these fine words:

    >H.O.G wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:55:57 +1200, Roger_Nickel <>
    >> spoke these fine words:
    >>
    >>>H.O.G wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Advice is advice, nothing more.
    >>>>>You cannot sue somebody for stating their opinion.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You can, though, if they are giving professional advice, and this
    >>>> advice turns out to be wrong causing loss.
    >>>>
    >>>> The question is, is someone giving flagrantly incorrect advice here
    >>>> liable? Interesting concept.
    >>>
    >>>Unlikely; there's nothing by way of a contractual professional
    >>>relationship.

    >>
    >> True, but is that needed?
    >>
    >> If someone says "jump in this water", and there is a shark in the
    >> water, and that person had reason to expect there to be a shark in the
    >> water, could that person be sued, whether or not there is a
    >> "contractual professional relationship"?

    >
    >No. If I told you to cut your arm off, and you cut it off, then
    >it would be your fault not mine.
    >

    Yes, but if I didn't know the consequences of cutting it off, and you
    did, or reasonably should have, it's a different matter.

    For instance, if you asked someone severely retarded to chop their arm
    off, and they did, you would be in a heap of trouble.
     
    H.O.G, Aug 21, 2005
    #18
  19. H.O.G

    Shane Guest

    On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:40:10 +1200, H.O.G wrote:

    > Yes, but if I didn't know the consequences of cutting it off, and you did,
    > or reasonably should have, it's a different matter.
    >
    > For instance, if you asked someone severely retarded to chop their arm
    > off, and they did, you would be in a heap of trouble.


    But if you told someone that Ladas are the greatest Vehicle on the planet
    and they bought one, whos at fault?

    --
    Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

    The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.
     
    Shane, Aug 21, 2005
    #19
  20. H.O.G

    H.O.G Guest

    On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:44:10 +1200, Shane <-a-geek.net>
    spoke these fine words:

    >On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:40:10 +1200, H.O.G wrote:
    >
    >> Yes, but if I didn't know the consequences of cutting it off, and you did,
    >> or reasonably should have, it's a different matter.
    >>
    >> For instance, if you asked someone severely retarded to chop their arm
    >> off, and they did, you would be in a heap of trouble.

    >
    >But if you told someone that Ladas are the greatest Vehicle on the planet
    >and they bought one, whos at fault?


    It depends if it is believable. If I presented myself as an "expert",
    and said that, for their circumstances it was the greatest vehicle
    they could get, and following my advice ended up costing them, they
    could technically seek reimbursement for costs incurred.

    But now we're starting to get a little abstract.

    If someone, presenting themselves as an expert (or at least apparently
    being an expert) said that a 100w PSU would be more than enough to
    power a P4, and a consequence was it fried taking out the motherboard
    and processor, they could possibly take legal action to recover the
    costs. Correct?
     
    H.O.G, Aug 21, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. .
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    786
  2. Ron

    Fact or Fiction?

    Ron, May 16, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    3,946
    SamCY
    Mar 26, 2009
  3. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    774
    Silverstrand
    Sep 22, 2006
  4. I Am
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    294
  5. Plato

    google OS, fact or fiction?

    Plato, Feb 24, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    421
    elaich
    Feb 27, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page