Re: Truecrypt 4.1
From: Ari Silverstein (abcarisilversteinn_at_yahoo.comxyz)
Date: 11/29/05
- Next message: Jeffrey F. Bloss: "Re: is this webpage secure?"
- Previous message: Peter Pearson: "Re: is this webpage secure?"
- In reply to: nemo_outis: "Re: Truecrypt 4.1"
- Next in thread: Juergen Nieveler: "Re: Truecrypt 4.1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:27:44 -0500
On 29 Nov 2005 15:18:02 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>> Perhaps where you live but in the USA, gross negligence is most often
>> interpreted as unwaivable.
>
> Gross negligence? We've now leapt from Borky's merely silly negligence to
> the patent absurdity of gross negligence, have we?
Nice catch.
<rolling eyes>
> And my point remains, trenchant as ever, despite you leapfrogging over it:
> until you establish a duty of care (and the required standard) it is more
> than a little premature to speak of negligence - any form of negligence.
And you would be wrong, leapfrog that.
-- Drop the alphabet for email
- Next message: Jeffrey F. Bloss: "Re: is this webpage secure?"
- Previous message: Peter Pearson: "Re: is this webpage secure?"
- In reply to: nemo_outis: "Re: Truecrypt 4.1"
- Next in thread: Juergen Nieveler: "Re: Truecrypt 4.1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
