[Hidden-tech] B Corps panel event UMass Isenberg THIS Tuesday March 25th, 7pm

[Rich Roth]

Phil and HT Group:
This is a bit of a mess due to a bit of sloppiness from a number of people:

1) clearly the original email from Andrew Bellak included a standard 
signature that really didn't apply,
and I couldn't see, because my preview doesn't show full messages.

2) Phil responded with a legal review that is interesting if not really 
relevant, also messy because it
was sent to many unrelated parties and I ok'd just to send this response -

3) Finally I ok'd the original message with an attachment that we don't 
allow on HT lists -- which I normally
catch and Andrew should know being a long time list member.

Overall, a reminder for everyone to be more careful when posting to the 
HT list and
finally,  no other discussion on this topic will continue.


Rich/webmaster

On 3/23/2014 4:11 PM, Phil Innes wrote:
>
> I received the message below from someone circulating information in this group, and the quoted segment below has no force in law that I know, and it is a wonder that people still use it;— in that it seeks prior restraint acting to suppress repetition IS against the law!
>
> The phrase ‘may be considered advertising’ is particularly egregious, since after stating what the message is not, it still does not state what it is, and who ‘may’ consider it advertising, that is, if any message from the source may or may not be advertising, and since unwonted spamming is against the law, and since communications may also mislead, saying that they can be misleading would be no defense in law.
>
> >From a publishing point of view arrangements for confidentiality are the same as with lawyers — that it must be a mutual up-front agreement.
>
> I mention all these things since messages of this type may seem to offer an insulation against the result of circulating information, whereas to the best of my knowledge such a statement provides none whatever — with result that this can lead to a false or reduced sense of security —nor has anyone been successfully sued for contradicting terms stated in such messages, since the information is freely volunteered to others.
>
> Cordially, Phil Innes
>
> Phil Innes
> Publisher
> Vermont Views Magazine
> www.vermontviews.org
> (802) 254 9722
>
>> This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of StakeHolders Capital. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice. This e-mail may be considered advertising under federal law. If you do not want to receive similar commercial electronic mail messages in the future from StakeHolders Capital, you may change your e-mail preferences at any time by contacting our office.
> _______________________________________________
> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net
> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
>
> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion list.
> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members
> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members
>