response 201 of 203:

Aug 31 16:07 UTC 1999

Disclaimers aren't as magical as much of the world is pleased to
pretend.  Simply putting a big sign on your SUV that says "Not
responsible for flattened pedestrians" does not mean you can run people
over with impunity. The same is true for many of the "not responsible
for..." signs and clauses you see.  Apartment leases tend to be full of
"not responsible" clauses that the landlord made up to ensure that
nobody would ever blame him for anything, but generally speaking they
aren't worth anything, even if you have signed the lease.  They're just
trying to bluff you into not suing them.

response 203 of 203:

Sep 11 02:40 UTC 1999

I was just wondering why ppl kept saying that there had been no discussion
about what we would do if the suit fails or the motion had failed.  It seems
to me that we had a rather extensive discussion of that, just prior to
assembling the brief, b/c that was proposed as part of the brief.

If I had had the opportunity (beginning with logging in during the voting
period) I would have definitely voted against this motion.  Having been a part
of coop discussions off and on for several years, now, I think I can say with
confidence that baff would have had as much of Grex up and running as it felt
was safe and responsible to run as soon as it reasonably could.  Given the
dedication they have shown over such an extended period of time, I simply
don't see how anyone could believe otherwise.

I don't know where richard came up with 3 days as a magic number.  If a minor
viewed material on grex one minute after the law went into effect that was
illegal for us to distribute to them, then grex would have violated the law.