CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 06, 2010 01:35 AM UTC

New Terms of Use, Privacy Policy for Colorado Pols

  • by: Colorado Pols

For the last five and a half years, Colorado Pols has operated as an informal gathering place, and open forum for the exchange of information about Colorado politics. In that time, this blog has grown from a small side endeavor of a few well-connected bloggers into the biggest political website in the state, and with that evolution comes additional challenges and responsibilities.

With that in mind, please take a moment to review the new Colorado Pols Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. These documents represent a need for additional protections–both for your hosts and our users–that we have recognized as lacking over the past year and longer; and that recent events have obligated us to implement immediately (more on this later in the week).

Please read these terms of use carefully, as they constitute a binding, legally enforceable agreement between you and us governing your access to and use of this blog, and to any other content made available via this website. Your ongoing use of the website, and continued use of the website following any changes to these terms (which will be posted as necessary), signifies your consent to be legally bound by our terms.

We don’t enjoy the idea of a layer of formality between ourselves and our readers, or between our interacting community members, but the thing we want everyone to understand is simple: your user experience isn’t going to change. We are still never going to disclose your identity as a user, for example, subject to a few specific legal considerations that have always existed–it’s just spelled out clearly for all parties now. And if you break the law using our website, we and our legitimate community of users are protected from the consequences of your illegal activity.

Please feel free to ask questions about any part of these documents. Note that in some cases, we’ll need to run questions by counsel and it may take time to respond. We will post links to the terms and privacy policy documents to the right-hand column of every page.


270 thoughts on “New Terms of Use, Privacy Policy for Colorado Pols

    1. by posting that, I guess I’ve agreed to the terms before I had a chance to read them. I didn’t just legally bind myself to stop poking fun at DavidThi808, did I?

      1. I suspect that’s the intent, after seeing the wall of text one finds when clicking through the links to the Terms and Policy.

        1. Is a very specific thing. I’m not aware of the Pols ever saying “vote for so-and-so.” That’s all I believe is meant by that, I guess we’ll see.


              What is an electioneering communication?

              An electioneering communication is any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that fulfills each of the following conditions:

              # The communication refers to a clearly identified federal candidate;

              # The communication is publicly distributed by a television station, radio station, cable television system or satellite system for a fee; and

              # The communication is distributed within 60 days prior to a general election or 30 days prior to a primary election to federal office.

              1. can we assume we can’t # refer to a clearly identified federal candidate # in a publicly distributed medium # 30 days prior to the primary or 60 days prior to the general?

                Hurry up people, only five more days to use Bennet, Norton, Buck and Romanoff’s actual names on here!

  1. Among the things Pols users are forbidden from posting: anything that

    l)    is misleading or deceptive, including falsely stating or otherwise misrepresenting your affiliation with a person or entity;

    So all the campaign shills who claim they aren’t campaign shills — Pols is going to take them to court?

    1. You can’t post anything that:

      (j)    involves commercial activities, political campaigning, and/or sales such as contests, sweepstakes, barter, advertising, or pyramid schemes;

      That would seem to cramp our style pretty significantly.

      1. There’s nothing saying we can’t post editorial content, but if it steps over the line into actual campaigning then there may be complications that the site doesn’t want.

        There’s a line between political editorializing and political campaigning; you’ll know it when you see it – or that’s the theory, anyway.

    2. These are just a fairly standard terms of service (TOS) and privacy policy (PP) that were overdue for inclusion on the site. We’ve grown large enough that we were advised it would be a good idea to put up a TOP and PP of our own.

      As for the rest of the rationale behind this…you’ll see soon enough. But this isn’t about trying to take some legal action of our own against anyone posting here.

      1. is not soon enough.

        I still think we should bet….

        – some campaign with no meda budget is suing CoPols in an attempt at free media

        – Pols is getting a tv show


  2. Both the TOU and PP indicate they will be dated “below” so that we can see when they were last changed.  But there are no dates on either.

    Likewise there are no links to the terms and privacy policy doc.

    If I don’t like some part of the Terms or Privacy Policy – now or in the future – how would I delete my user account?    

    1. We corrected and added below as well. Not sure what you mean about the links, the two documents are linked to other another at the top of each.

      As to your question, please see the section “How Collected Information is Used” in the Privacy Policy.

      1. we note the date this Privacy Policy was last updated below

        So I thought it would be dated at the bottom.


        We will post links to the terms and privacy policy documents to the right-hand column of every page.

        So I was looking for links at the right hand side of the page.

        as for how I would delete my user account

        …If, at any time, you do not agree with or consent to this Privacy Policy, your sole remedy is to elect not to register with the Website or to terminate an existing registered account…

        Which does not address the question of how I would “…terminate an existing registered account.”  It only implies that I would be able to do so.  How?


    So if someone stumbles onto this website from somewhere else, they’re legally acknowledging that they agree to these things? In fact, that’s impossible unless the terms of use is the very first page they view.

            1. or ‘paying prostitutes for disgusting acts,’ or apparently ‘having your parents buy off your mistress’s husband,’ so long as you’re a Republican senator. Such standards!

              1. Others not so much.  I am merely postulating that you have the latter.  

                I believe I am within the TOS parameters.  Posting ‘misleading’ content is, however, in violation.  

                    1. For what possible reason would you be discussing my stance, given your comments above? I wasn’t aware we were talking about baseball.

            2. and a horrible one at that!  But I miss sxp, I guess he’s still sulking that David Thi is now an FPE.  I hope he comes back soon.  

  4. “You represent and warrant that you… have the written consent, release, and permission of each and every identifiable individual person included in such Member Content to use their name or likeness”

    So if anyone posts a diary or comment about any candidate they first have to obtain written consent from them? What about other people, like the President (who shall remain nameless)?

    1. “You may not post, upload, transmit or otherwise make available via the Forums, any Member Content that:

      (a)    is unlawful, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, indecent, lewd, racially offensive, suggestive, harassing, threatening, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, abusive, inflammatory, fraudulent or otherwise objectionable”

      libelous, defamatory, indecent, suggestive, threatening, abusive, inflammatory…

      Looks like a lot of people are going to get kicked off. In all seriousness, I think that ColoradoPols should consider whether Steve Harvey’s virulent repsonses to virtually EVERYTHING I post are abusive.

      1. What about all of those posts a few weeks ago, in succession, when I had stopped responding to you, in which you kept bragging that you were capable of being offensive enough to get me to react, and then crowing about how easy it was, over and over again? What, now you’re upset that I granted you your wish? Here’s another bit of free advice: Don’t piss into the wind, and then complain that you got pissed on.

        You fancied yourself capable of being an intellectual bully, got the shit kicked out of you, and now you want to try to play the victim? Good luck with that. Jackass.

        1. There is no better illustration of the intellectual gap between Steve Harvey and Beejob the gym teacher than BJ’s use of several harvey lines of droll self-deprecation as proof of harvey’s lack of self-deprecation, or whatever it is he’s trying to proof.

            For god’s sake, don’t let that idiot read any Jonathan Swifth.  He’d be horrified that someone proposed eating Irish babies.

            Personally, I find Steve’s willingness to poke a little fun at himself as one of his better qualities.


          1. Of all the sig lines I’ve inspired, BJ’s definitely win the “what?” award. Even taken out of context, only someone as completely clueless as BJ could possibly think that those lines are in any way embarrassing to me!

                    1. It’s a bit like saying “I’ve never lost a chess match to a Grand Master,” but, in this case, it was actually relevant (exactly as the latter example would be in response to “you’re a failed chess player against Grand Masters”).

        2. so you have only yourself to blame. I keep them up to remind people of who you really are when you attack me. I don’t even know how many of the Terms of Use that last post broke.

          1. You post those as an act of aggression (the fact that it is an impotent act of aggression is beside the point), and then complain that you are some kind of victim. It just doesn’t work that way.

              1. I don’t mind the quotes. I like them. I stand by them. But you and I and everyone else know that you’re using them because you think that you are somehow harming me by doing so. And when you are trying, no matter how ineffectively, to harm someone, you have no right to complain about how they treat you. Now do you get it? It’s not rocket science.

                  1. your “response” is simultaneously obnoxious, irrelevant, and completely disconnected from reality. You’re either so obnoxious that you will indefinitely pretend not to understand the endless flow of simple statements that undermine you, or so stupid that you truly are unable to understand such statements (I suspect it’s a combination of the two). Either way, you’re the only person who doesn’t get it.

    2. You represent and warrant that you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use, copy, store, publish, display, and distribute any Member Content you post via the Website or Forums or have the written consent, release, and permission of each and every identifiable individual person included in such Member Content to use their name or likeness.

      It’s not crazy at all, there are basic fair use rights to all of that content where applicable. Why leave that part out of your quote, Mr. Context?

                  1. And what credibility do YOU have? Hint: to prove you have any, find some links to user posts where someone was sticking up for you, or saying something positive about your contributions here.

                    1. Haven’t seen you post much on here. There are a few conservatives who have agreed with me from time to time – obviously you don’t read much ColoradoPols.

                    2. Beej, the world did not begin on April 30 when you created your account. You’re noisy, I’ll grant you that, but just like your monumental misunderstanding of the Afghan War and Obama’s policies there, you don’t have a clue about Colorado Pols.

                    3. but ask around – I was one of the most prolific posters here about 3 1/2 years. I’m a bit burned out, although I still check in as a lurker fairly regularly.

                      Or, just click on my name and read my comments and diaries. Notice that I’ve been registered for four years – since the time Pols made this a registration site – but have been here even longer.

                      Actually, I think I’ll go post a diary about this right now. Go to the home page and vote in my poll.

              1. come onto the blog bragging about your ability to harass others enough to provoke them to post responses to you, you have lost any and all rights to make such complaints. So sorry about that.

                Among your many feats of cluelessness is the fact that you can complain about me harassing you, when you have repeatedly claimed that it’s so easy to goad me into responding to you, and that I provide such lovely fodder for your sig lines. As always, you fail to see your own absurdity. And guess what? I’ve never minded your harassment of me, because in a battle of wits, you’re a dream opponent.

                BTW, the irony (and what you’re simply too dim-witted to get) is that I’ve been prepared to go back to merely dismantling the content of your astronomically stupid posts, without comment on your character or direct reference to their astronomiocal stupidity, the moment you chose to do the same. It’s called the TIT-FOR-TAT strategy: Act cooperatively initially, and then respond in kind to whatever is dished out. The harassment you’re complaining about only exists as long as you insist upon its existence.

                1. although I don’t think you can call what I posted harassing. Now you attaching a diary full of substanceless insults to each one of my comments might be considered abuse or harassment.

                  “without comment on your character” – I believe you are not supposed to post things which are misleading or false.

                  BTW, since “political campaigning” is prohibited, you should remove the link to your campaign website.

                  1. All of my insults of you are quite substantial!

                    BJ, you’re an obnoxioius idiot. No amount of whining is ever going to change that (or disguise it), and no amount of complaining about the reaction to it –while engaged in absurd and hollow posturing, ubiquitous insults of others, and a constant but transparently absurd pretense that you really always have the upper hand– is ever going to be taken seriously. (If you were just one and not the other, just obnoxious or an idiot, you provoke such an outporing of disgust. But the combination is just a “kick me” sign taped to your butt, and you’re the one who keeps making sure it stays stuck there).  

                2. rather than singular. I hadn’t actually read the thread, just a reference to me, and BJ accusing someone of being abusive. I just assumed he meant me. I guess that’a a bit like assuming that the cockroach scurrying across the floor of a crowded room is running away from you personally….

            1. How dare anyone out there make fun of BJ after all he has been through!

              HE’S A HUMAN! What you don’t realize is that BJ is making you all this money and all you do is write a bunch of crap about him.

              LEAVE HIM ALONE! You are lucky he even performs for you BASTARDS!

              LEAVE BJ ALONE!…..Please.

              Leave BJ alone Please !

              Leave BJ alone!…right now!….I mean it!

              Anyone that has a problem with him you deal with me, because he is not well right now.

              LEAVE BJ ALONE!

          1. Just read the indemnification section. Well it’s kind of pointless to have an agreement that ColoradoPols doesn’t have to live by.

          2. These protect CP not you.  If you can find a lawyer that believes you, BJ, have been libeled, or that at least sees a sucker willing to buy sufficient billable hours to lose, then I say–by all means–go for it.  

            1. Still not sure if I have to get permission to use his name. I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a lawyer, that’s why I’m asking these questions.

              1. Terms of Use are a standard CYA tool.  

                I am not a lawyer nor particularly adept at legalese.  I am however an observant person that seeks to understand more than just what occupies my own area of expertise and interest.  You might try that sometime.  

                1. if we thought you had a case, we’d take the case on contingency.  

                    And I say that in all seriousness too.

                    Lawyers are often maligned (i’m not one, but I put my kid through law school and I am a certified paralegal.)  But the contingency fee system is the only way, as a practical matter, that the non-rich can seek justice.  

                    That, of course, discusses civil law.  On the criminal side, public defenders do support indigent defendants rather well.

                    It’s easy to knock criminal lawyers, but it’s really true that if we didn’t defend the rights of even the guilty, that the law could easily begin to overreach.  

    1. It’s probably okay – they’re just links to content.  If the Copyright holder wants to take them down, they can complain to YouTube under the DMCA and they’ll be down in an instant.  CP doesn’t have to do any work in that regard; if they get a complaint, they can fire off a quick form response saying “it’s not us, and the content isn’t here”.

      There is a lot of stuff on YouTube that’s been released by the artists or studios as, essentially, guerrilla marketing.  CP can’t take the time for (and under DMCA is pretty much restricted from) policing such links if they want to maintain their legal protections as a service provider.

      Still, as someone who makes money from Copyright content (photos), and makes more for my employer creating other such content (software code), I’d suggest this…  If you think the content you’re linking to is in violation of Copyright, don’t link to it.  If you are linking to content (like an image) for a diary you’re writing, consider it use of the image as though you were publishing it yourself.  And be considerate to the site you’re linking the image from – provide a link back to the site unless the image is very clearly for public use without credit.

  5. “No Framing; Links; Third Party Sites.  Framing, in-line linking or other methods of association with the Forums or Website are expressly prohibited without prior written approval from CP.”

    We can’t post links to CP articles? Or we can’t post links in diaries?

        1. Why do Republicans become such pedant assholes whenever they want? I thought you guys were the party of straight talk, but you know you’re being silly. Seriously, why do you do that?

            1. So you can whine that everyone’s making fun of your name and being mean to you? How about “Crybaby83,” unless that user name is already taken.

                1. You’re serious, aren’t you?

                  Beej, sit down, brother from another mother.

                  There’s actually no such thing as a “waahmbulance.”

                  You know this, right?

    1. You can’t embed CP content in a frame on another site or otherwise display CP content on another site without the permission of CP.

      Framing would be creating a page at your site with framed content, and displaying the CP site (or some subset of it) in one of the frames; when you do this, it looks like it’s your content and not CP’s – that’s Bad.

      In-line linking would be, most likely, inclusion of the Big Line graphic on another site via a link.  CP claims exclusive ownership of that content, and this clause is probably included mostly to protect that graphic.

        1. Perfect 10 v Google says two things:

          1) You can’t prohibit links to your site from other sites.  This applies to things like regular hyperlinks such as we might use to point to the source of a quote.

          2) A thumbnail image (Google auto-created and hosted) is Fair Use as Google uses it – i.e. as a search reference with a link to the destination page, but not suitable as a replacement/duplicate of that content.

          The ruling doesn’t apply to inline links – e.g. embedding images hosted at a third party site for your own use, via <img src=””> or similar.  I don’t know if there’s a specific ruling on embedding images from another site into your own content.

          1. via Wikipedia

            Google does not…display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user’s computer screen. Because Google’s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any “material objects…in which a work is fixed…and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user’s browser to a website publisher’s computer that stores the full-size photographic image. Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user’s computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user’s browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user’s computer screen. Google may facilitate the user’s access to infringing images. However, such assistance raised only contributory liability issues and does not constitute direct infringement of the copyright owner’s display rights. …While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act…does not protect a copyright holder against [such] acts….

            (Emphasis mine)

            1. That’s what I get for overlooking that section of the Wiki entry.

              Having admitted that, I’d suggest that “be nice to others” has to enter in to the discussion, as well as bandwidth cost considerations which courts seem to have not spent much time considering.  A site like Daily Kos limits inline linking to dedicated systems like Photobucket or YouTube because most sites would die under the load of such a popular site.  (Some sites die just from the number of people clicking links – imagine how much worse it is when you inline link an image…)  When you inline link – be it here or elsewhere – you are causing a site to use the resources of the link target’s system.  Be nice to others and don’t use their resources to “republish” their images someone else’s banner.

              (BTW, Pols – if you don’t do this already…    There are technical measures that a site operator can take to prevent or at least highly limit inline linking from other sites.)

  6. and due to the “lewd”, “obscene”, and “pornograhpic” ways in which my screen name has been portrayed, I’m considering changing it. Defender of Freedom? William Wallace? LibWhacker? What do you guys think? Maybe I should do a diary with a poll…

      1. is Vitter these days: “He really Vittered the hell out of those prostitutes.” Less common would be the descriptive “Ensign” — “I was in deep shit but my parents Ensigned my baby’s hubby for me.”

            1. …oh wait. Not to mention that Edwards messed up an entire presidential campaign and was about as disingenuous as you can be about it. At least Republicans admit they made a mistake.

          1. On what a “pud” is, and what he or she means by “wapping” it.

            Oh. Well at least he/she said it nicely! Isn’t that from Goonies? Are you trying to say Goonies, the wonderful coming of age movie from the 1980’s, is obscene?

  7. “later in the week” Pols will tell us what’s behind bringing this all up right now along with a few easy to read English sentences about things, if any, that some of us may have been doing that we need to stop doing or things that some of us may not have been aware of that we need to be aware of.    

    1. Hey, Pols!

      Put up a big line and I’ll post a diary with poll.

      You know, something like

      – just cleaning up 2:1

      – got notice of potential litigation  5:1

      – got bought by The Economist  100:1

      – about to buy Denver Post   500:1

  8. Advantage whiners.

    If the thinner-skinned of your readers don’t like having bullshit called bullshit, then I can’t tell them that bullshit is bullshit.

    I.e, Ralphie can’t be Ralphie.

    It’s your site, you can control what is posted.

    But if I can’t be me, I’ll be posting a lot less.

    Good luck.

        1. is like asking the scorpion to change its nature, Ralphie.  

            Posting bullshit and fantasizing about how hot Ken Buck would look in gym shorts are what get him through the day.

            1. “Obscenity” actually has to have something to do about sex.  “appealing to a purient interest” and with “no redeeming social virtue.”

                 Unless you’re even stranger than I think you are, there is no way that using the term “bullshit” should awaken your purient interest.

              Now, taking about Ken Buck in gym shorts probably did, but that’s your problem.

                   Debatebly, the famous abbreviation for firetruck…and your initials…might be obscene.   But “bullshit” is a vulgarity, as are other references to bodily functions.  This actually dates back to the norman conquest when anglo-saxon terms like “shit” were replaced in the upper class by french words like “fece.”  Even though the meaning of both words was identical, use of the anglo-saxon marked you as a member of the lower class.

                 The third area of occasionally offensive language is profanity.  It also doesn’t have anything to do with sex but consists of taking a given deity’s name in vain.

                “Jesus H. Christ!”  is an example of profanity — you are taking a sacred term and using it in a profane way.

                 So, in fact, J&B, you are the one who doesn’t know what “obscene” means.  Literally, you don’t know the definition and, given your reluctance to learn from your legion of intellectual superiors on this board, you aren’t likely to absorb my teachings either, so your ignorance will continue.

                So study the notes and learn the differences between obscenity, vulgarity and profanity.   There will be a test on Tuesday.

              And if you fail, I’ll go on mocking you mercilessly!

              1. I was taking about “fantasizing about how hot someone would look in gyms shorts”. Although now that you mention it I do think profanity is generally considered obscene, as in “he uttered an obscenity.”

                1. profanity is generally considered obscene,

                   is only true when referring to Morons.   Or does the term “Jesus Crist, you’re stupid, BJ”

                  make you hot?

                    Now, the Ken Buck in gym shorts line did make you hot, right?  

                    No, that’s not obscenity either.

                    As I said, I knew you wouldn’t accept advice from your intellectual superiors.  And since that list includes virtually everybody on this board — it means you’re fundamentally ineducable.

                  1. you’re a bit further down in the gutter than others. I like nothing better than to poke holes in the arguments of puffed up “intellectual superiors” who think they know better than everyone else how to run the world. I will certainly learn from those who have good arguments to make. Again, probably the only example on the left, David Thielen.

                    1. my parakeet is your intellectual superior.

                        And my parakeet is dead!

                         Sarah Palin is your intellectual superior!

                            Glenn Beck…well…kind of a co-equal idiot with you, I guess.

                    2. but I tend to agree with you about Palin. And it’s an honor to be considered in the same class as Glenn Beck (yeah, yeah, let the Beck bashing begin). You know he actually reads our founding documents? I bet he knows more history about the founding of our country than anyone here.

                    3. Or is it ‘Books on Tape’?  Either way, the founding documents even.  Crazy.  No one else has done that.  A real heavy weight, is Batshit Beck.  

                    4. This is what drives everyone nuts: you’ve never poked a hole in any argument! YOU’VE NEVER MADE ANY ARGUMENT!!! All you do is make empty assertions, and then refer to the arguments you’ve supposedly made. As I’ve challenged you to do before, I’ll challenge you to do again: Link to one argument you’ve ever made! Dispell the myth once and for all.

                      The depth of your disconnect from reality is simply breathtaking….

                    5. It’s beejay’s combination of total arrogance and utter ignorance that make him such an irresistible foil.   And after every pie fight, as he licks the blueberries off his face and stares at his uncompletely unmarked foes, he smirks “I won again.   I am the kind of the food fights!”

                        I suppose I should quit picking on him, but suffering fools gladly has never been my strong suit.

                    6. Mine neither. If he’d give us the slightest excuse to “live and let live,” I think most of us would be happy to let him express his empty and arbitrary opinions to his heart’s content, merely pointing out their defects wtihout having to always point out his defects at the same time. But he keeps challenging everyone to a duel, and then complaining that he’s getting picked on! The poor guy is just a mega-buffoon, who needs to learn to crow about his buffoonery a bit less!

                    7. I’ll continue to tear you apart every time you post, though I’ll make more of an effort to keep my comments focused on the meaningless crap that you say, rather than the meaningless crap that you are.

                    8. beyond that, write to your heart’s content. Conservative, Liberal, I don’t care.

                      Laughing Boy and Newsman have been our resident Conservatives. As much as I may disagree with them, I respect them.

                    9. Write something, reasonable or not, but straightforward and left to its own merits (rather than packaged with all sorts of arbitrary claims of credibility and legitimacy), and, though people would tear the idea apart, they’d probably, for the most part, be much gentler with you. It’s not just the completely lame quality of your hollow and random blind ideological assertions (can’t even call them “arguments”) that are so galling, but rather the accompaniment of bizarre (and clearly diametrically-opposite-to-reality) claims of intellectual superiority, and the repeated insistence that you’ve trounced those against whom you’ve merely flailed blindly.

                      I can be kind to an ignorant fool, but not one that is obnoxious about it at the same time.

                    10. Really, you shouldn’t indulge in this sort of mudslinging. I can’t imagine you getting elected if I publicize everything you’ve said here.

                    11. what the vast majority of people who have chimed in seem to perceive…, except you. To quote he who only can posture: “Sad, really.”

                      No one, least of all me, could care less what you can and can’t imagine.

                    12. the content of your posts will always be fair game. Even if you were the nicest guy in the world, and I loved you like a brother, I’d critique your posts for being empty, irrational bullshit (though I might choose gentler words if I liked you more).

                      Robin and I are good friends, for instance, though when he disagrees with something I post, he replies with “geez” (which is Polseze for “don’t forget to give yourelf a colonoscopy while you’re up there”). BC and I are great chums, but she’s not at all hesitent to give me a piece of her mind when she disagrees with me!

                      In other words, you’d get those “rants” on a regular basis, regardless of all else. Your posts really are just a bunch of random, arbitrary, blindly ideological assertions, devoid of fact or argument. That fact exists independently of the fact that you yourself are so obnoxious about it that no one feels particularly inclined to be gentle in pointing out what an idiot you are.

                    13. is profound wisdom to the rest of us. I’m not arrogant, just confident in the rightness of what I fight for every day.

                    14. What liberals consider utter ignorance, some people consider profound wisdom. Remember when people used to put little pyramids on their heads to channel the cosmic power? They thought that was profound wisdom as well. Some today think that racism is profound wisdom, or that mutual indifference is profound wisdom, or that theocracy is profound wisdom, or that any number of odious and irrational ideas are profound wisdom. That’s why we rely on reason applied to data to determine which positions actually are utter ignorance and which are profound wisdom. You have proven yourself incapable of distinguishing between such argumentation and the arbitrary assertions you make, and have combined that inability with an arrogant and completely counterfactual insistence on your own brilliance.

                      But we do get that you’ll never get it. People will eventually tire of pointing it out to you, and you’ll be free to hunker down in the comfort of your delusions. You’ll just have to cope with the fact that only similarly deluded others will ever hunker down there with you, and only that subset of them that can stand your obnoxious personality.

                    15. Your insistence that the term Bullshit!

                      is obscenity.  Obscenity has a legal definition — appealing wholly to the prurient interest with no redeeming social virtue.

                        That means, to you, bullshit is an erotic symbol that arouses your prurient interest.

                      That’s just stupid — it displays total ignorance on your part.   No, your stupidity is not profound wisdom.  It’s just stupidity, compounded by arrogance and a total unwillingness to learn.

                    16. see the arguments I’ve poked holes in. As far as my arguments, why, every post on this thread contains them, including this post. I suppose you wouldn’t be hovering over your computer in the wee hours of the night just waiting for me to post a comment so you can comment on it otherwise.

                    17. so we can explain why it doesn’t constitute “an argument”. Link to any time you’ve ever poked a hole in any liberal argument, so we can explain (again) why it pokes no hole whatsoever.

                      You get responses by virtue of being stupid and obnoxious, and for no other reason whatsoever. It should be obvious by now even to an idiot like you that everyone other than you gets that.

                    18. Calm down there, Steve.

                      It’s easier and much more productive to ignore him.  

                    19. Especially since he’s simply too dumb to be humiliated by the fact that his empty posturing and comical boasting have been blown to smitherenes, over and over again. There’s something about such persistent, arrogant, delusional ignorance that is like fingernails on a chalkboard, a fact that I’m sure delights BJ, since he has no other contribution to make (or competence to offer) than to be as obnoxious as possible.

                    20. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

                      OMG-That is funny.  Oh great math professor and stalwart defender of vacuous talking points, that is a truly funny bit of self-puffery.

                  2. 1)  his interpretation of the new Pols legalese: “profanity is generally considered obscene” (contrary to: decades of law)

                    2)  Obama was an opponent of the Afghanistan war before getting elected and now has flip-flopped (contrary to: Obama’s consistent support for the Afgh war, pre- & post-election)

                    3)  The health care law contains “death panels” based on a series of bizarro assertions, the most hilarious of which is my sig line…

                    1. Nobody understands your convoluted sig line which tries to spin my statements into some sort of ludicrous statement.

                2. my essay on the difference between obscenity, profanity and vulgarity was prompted by your claim that Bullshit’s nome de blog was obscene.  It’s not, it’s vulgar.

                    By definition.  Unless bullshit makes you hot.   And maybe it does…  

                    1. I was referring to a specific use of the word infrastructure in an argument. But I didn’t really expect you to care about the truth. I don’t really think your sig line is that damaging. Infrastructure can be a lot of different things, which is why I wasn’t sure what he was referring to specifically.

                    2. Read my previous posts on slander and libel.

                      Your insult would not be actionable.  It would be stupid, but then, the insult came from BJ, right, so everyone would consider the sourse.  

                        So, are you straight now on the difference between vulgarity, obscenity and profanity?

                        Next week, Steve Harvey and I plan an extended webinar in which we will try to teach you the difference between shit and shinola.

                         Please prepare for the session by watching “The Jerk” with Steve martin.


                    3. best line of this thread:

                      Unless you’re even stranger than I think you are, there is no way that using the term “bullshit” should awaken your purient interest.

                      (I’d make this my sig line, but then I’d have to give up BJ’s all-time stupidest statement, his “analysis” of “death panels”)

                      BUT, I must disagree with those who call BJ a troll. I’ve finally figured out what BJ really is — the creepiest muse ever: by serving up nothing but a steaming pile of shit every few hours, he somehow nourishes everyone spectacularly, bringing out Voy’s best in punch lines, and everyone else’s best in ability to sound like Clarence Darrow disproving provable bullshit.

                    4. well reasoned conservative arguments make us think about the conservative side of things. You just make us groan.

                      (I could make, and have made, better conservative arguments than you’ve ever made. I’m a big believer in the dictum that unless you can make the best arguments possible against your own positions, you don’t really have a strong basis for those positions. As such, when I choose to, I can make very compelling conservative arguments, all of which inform my own positions, which are not constrained by any commitment to ideological purity).

                    5. I don’t want to hear any of your “conservative” arguments. You understand nothing about conservative values.

                    6. You are insulated from all arguments, arbitrarily convinced of the random truths that your personal history has led you to adopt, a blind and mindless algorithm repeating phrases and posturing attitudes, often just spitting back the coopted phrases of those who both oppose and dwarf you in public discourse. Of course you don’t want to hear anything I have to say! You have defined me, out of convenience rather than in response to evidence, as someone who has nothing of value to say, merely because I have observed the empirical fact that you have yet to say anything of value (at least in terms of logical argumentation). Your reactions are mere iterations of that mindless algorithm that is BJ, in which the relevant rule states: “if insulted, respond with an identical insult to the person who insulted me, no matter how random or inapplicable it may be.”

                      As I said in the diary, created by another, in which the majority of posters convened to try to get across to you what clearly no one ever will, I’d be happy to turn the other way if you insist on continuing to come here to masterbate in public. So, if you want me to leave you alone, just stop making sure that I don’t, and I’ll let you enjoy your little fantasy to your heart’s content. If you choose not to take advantage of this opportunity, you have no right ever again to complain about the fact that I will continue to dismantle absolutely everything you ever post here, for as long as you choose to continue posting here. Do one smart thing, at long last: Don’t respond.

                    7. You’re obscene, vulgar, and profane. We get it. In the future when I read your posts, I’ll make sure to consider the sourse.

    1. This conversation seems to have gotten a little afield. The standards that define the terms we use to describe various kinds of disallowed content, notwithstanding hard legal obligations we and every website you visit must adhere to, have always been and will continue to be the sole discretion of the hosts. No one should have any reason to believe that those standards are going to suddenly become onerous or even change noticeably, except perhaps in very small ways as required by law.

      We recognize that, for example, vigorous debate often becomes heated and we have absolutely no intention of turning into nannies over our forum, which we expressly state is not for persons under 18. Our standards conform to minimal legal standards, but always have been and will remain quite permissive. We have always had the right to intervene when things get a little too heated, or begin to violate clear acceptable standards of conduct, and will continue to do so.

      To briefly address questions about “political campaigning,” this certainly isn’t meant to preclude anything other than express advocacy for votes, for a given candidate, in a paid capacity as defined by law. Additional FEC regulations may apply to individuals and their actions, but the responsibility for compliance is their own. We will supply additional details on this subject later since it seems to merit them; in the meantime, really–do not be alarmed.

      1. libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, indecent, lewd, racially offensive, suggestive, harassing, threatening, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, abusive, inflammatory, fraudulent or otherwise objectionable? That part of the terms of use seems pretty clear to me. You need to either remove that section from the Terms of Use or take it seriously when people post these kinds of comments.

        1. What part of “sole discretion of the hosts” is unclear to you? Your 1955 ABC censor mentality doesn’t rule America either, have you noticed this?

        2. Courtesy of Wikipedia, posted according to Fair Use:

          It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

          …libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. [emphasis Twitty].

          …The debate whether Internet blogs or Bulletin Boards are publishers is a key subject being addressed, whereas an Internet based community is more akin to conversations in a bar or pub, with content being written as an ongoing dialogue that is generally not edited or regulated such as in the publishing industry.  …In many legal systems, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as fact must be proven false to be defamatory or slanderous/libelous. Proving adverse public character statements to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel or defamation. Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense….To win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were “statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact” and second that these statements were false. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. If the statement can be proved true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is true or false. If the statement cannot be proved true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case.

  9. As I do other things with my life, online and in the sunshine. It has come to my attention that Colorado polls is considered a “leftist” site. (FReerepublic, Denver Post, Politico etc…) I for one appreciate how balanced pols actually is. As those who post propaganda get called out on it regularly. (from both sides) THIS IS GOOD.

    As it would seem that most of the bullshit and propaganda does come from the right. Thus they get called on it and feel specially persecuted.

    I have been permanently banned from the Post as the propagandists certainly did not like me calling out their bullshit (daily) as well as exposing conservatives as the paranoids that they are. Treat them as they treat others and MAN do they get pissed off. thus I am a provocateur. I wear that badge proudly.

    It would seem the same is happening here, the rightees must be mounting a “moral crusade” to stop Leftists from exposing their bullshit and thus attack with complaints getting one and then another (DEM) banned.

    I certainly hope this sort of censorship does NOT happen here at Polls.

    OR is it?

    P>S> I appreciate the allowance of cuss words when and where appropriate.

    America is NOT Lilly white nor pure as the driven snow. it is nice to see some “Colorful” language from time to time.

    1. You’re one of the most far left people on here. Somehow I doubt that you got banned for “exposing conservatives” on the Denver Post. The Post itself leans slightly left. The Rocky Mountain News was the right of center paper.

      1. at the Rocky, as they were with me. it was the move to the post that really started the complaints against me.

        especially when I treated rethuglicans (and using that term) as they treat Democrats. thats when I started racking up complaints.

        Pointing out how republicans Hate Democrats (and voices like rush and Ann colulter) issuing hunting permits on Liberals… This is what garnered the most complaints.

        Conservatives hate Democrats… SO I hate them right back.

        yet conservatives have such thin skins they feel as though they are specifically picked upon. when you disprove their propaganda. Boo Fucking Hoo. cry me a river you selfish pompous under-miners of Liberty. (in the name of “morals” no less.)

        1. Wow, don’t know what you’re smoking, but that was the whole reason the Tea Party was started – to defend liberty from the big government liberals.

          1. yeah sure there BJ.

            the tea party (in its current hijacked form) is nothing but the less intelligent Bigots upset Obama won the presidency.

            and yeah republicans spout all about Liberty then constrict it in the name of “morals” or when Democrats act as they themselves do.

          2. how people define and perceive themselves, and what they in fact are, are not necessarily the same thing.

            The Tea Partiers are the biggest threat to liberty that this country has seen in generations (since the somewhat similar and similarly disgraceful McCarthyist era). For one thing, since government is the bulwark against all non-governmental intrusions on individual liberty, anti-government movements are anti-liberty movements to the extent that agencies other than government threaten individual liberty. For another, liberty can be augmented as well as denied, so, to the extent that those government activities that extend opportunity to where opportunity is in historically short supply, anti-government movements are anti-liberty movements for denying the creation of opportunities which facilitate individual liberty. Third, those Teapartiers who claim that our current legal, constitutional processes are anti-constitutional by virtue of not legitimating their interpretation of the constitution (including, often, an almost complete ignorance of The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment), and threaten to enforce the rule of law that they feel is currently not adequately enforced, they pose a potent threat to that very rule of law (since, by definition, it is procedural, and it is the procedural product that they object to), which in turn poses a potent threat to individual liberty (which depends directly on the rule of law.

            Again, right or wrong, this is what an informed argument looks like. For future reference.

            1. If the government is the bulwark against outside forces infringing on individual liberty, what is the bulwark holding back government from infringing upon individual liberty?

              You argue from the point that government is the be-all and end-all to freedom, liberty, and happiness.  I disagree with that premise.  We do need rules and laws to live by, and people to implement them.  But we don’t need an intrusion by those same people into all aspects of our lives.  We want government to protect us, not rule us.

              And my answer to the question above:  The citizens who will step out in public and peacefully show their desires from, and disappointment with, government.  Just like those Tea Party members who you hold in such disdain.  

              1. not a comprehensive analysis. First of all, I don’t argue “that government is the be-all and end-all of freedom liberty, and happiness.” I challenge you to find any statement I’ve ever made to that effect. The suggestion is based on a logical fallacy: That by arguing that government serves a vital function vis-a-vis those values, I must be arguing that government is “the be-all and end-all.” Any one of my vital organs serves a vital function to my continued existence, but that doesn’t mean any particular organ can accomplish that alone. I see government as a vital part of our institutional framework, in conjunction with other vital parts of our institutional framework, and the one which is uniquely capable of channeling polity-wide collective intentional decision-making vis-a-vis our institutional framework.

                You engage in a form of reductionism that I do not think is useful: We want to use our institutions to our maximum benefit, all things considered, not to presuppose what that entails. Your formula provides no real guidance: We want government to do some things, but not others. We want government to provide a basic set of rules, but not to intrude beyond them. Great. But how does that help with the challenge of drawing the line, and on what basis will that line drawing occur? Is it an intrusion onto too many aspects of my life if government prohibits me from blasting my stereo in a residential neighborhood at 2:00 AM? How do you make that determination based on your model? Really, you make it by knowing that the issue has pretty much been settled, but you don’t understand the nuances in how such issues are settled.

                I don’t begrudge anyone the right to gather peacefully, to protest government actions, or to express their views. But when the views expressed our, according to my analysis of what best serves our collective welfare, an effort to impose something counterproductive, and sometimes borders on calls to illegality and extraconstitutionality, then it is equally my right to say that I am concerned about those aspects of that movement. I can respect people’s right to speak even while voicing my opposition to the content of that speech. And I can express concern that some of that speech is an assault on the concept of rule of law, without yet being an actual assault on rule of law itself.

                The bulwark against government infringing on individual liberty is, imperfectly but impressively, embedded in our institutional blueprint: The combination of seperation of powers (and the checks and balances among them), federalism (a kind of verticle seperation of powers, and a tension between them, posing reciprocal checks and balances), and democratic selection of the human agents of government. These bulwarks have functioned surprisingly well, and we should be extremely reluctant to leap to other tactics for accomplishing this, and particularly reluctant to do so in sectarian ways.

          3. I thought it was because of non existent tax hikes? Or maybe because of out of control spending? No was to limit the government powers to ONLY what the Constitution gives it. Or was it just a state’s rights fight?

            Let’s face it, as each of these claims (and more) were set up and knocked down the Teabaggers became fighters for something else. They still haven’t answered why they didn’t rise up under the 8 years of Bush’s fiscal nightmare and true attack of personal liberties. No answer to where their voices were when we went to war twice without paying for it, passed he Patriot Act, and expanded the Executive powers to levels never seen before. Seems these “defenders of liberty” didn’t have much of a problem with the things the white Republican President was doing.

            Be honest, the Tea Party has always been about one thing and one thing only. Anger that this nation elected its first black President.

  10. Are the inane comments and verbal equivalent of star wars the largest reaction in the shortest period of time Pols has ever recorded for a single posting?

  11. Or if they are enforced (which they have to be to remain enforceable), this site will have no comments, because everyone who comments here breaks the “forum guidelines” in the TOS.

    Pols, you need to either change the rules or close up shop. These rules make ColoradoPols into something it isn’t and takes away everything it is.

    To forbid posting anything that “involves political campaigning” is to forbid posting anything that involves politics.

    It’s not legally defensible to put up a bunch of rules with the expectation that nobody will follow them, and then turn around and try to enforce them selectively. You have to enforce the rules as written. Ask your lawyers about estoppel.

    1. In their sole discretion, this site can ban anyone they want.  They can do this regardless of whether or not they have a TOS – it’s their own private site – but having the TOS gives them some reasons to site when they kick out someone likely to whine about having been banned.

      Also, I believe having a TOS/AUP and a Privacy Policy moves them into better position for DMCA defenses as a service provider (can’t remember the DMCA requirements well enough at this point to be sure, but I think having certain policies in place was a prerequisite to claim existence as a service provider).

      1. I care about being sued.

        I also care about ColoradoPols’s ability to defend themselves in a lawsuit, and your ability to sue if ColoradoPols wrongs you in some way.

        When you write an unenforceable contract, it’s unenforceable.

        I can’t read it the way you want me to read it, because it’s not written that way.

        1. You’re not paying them anything, and by agreeing to the TOS you agree that CP isn’t responsible for your content (and, consequently, CP has a strong defense against being involved in any lawsuit that you might cause, lowering your risk of being sued by the site owners for damages you’ve brought on them…).

          They’re not going to sue you for being obscene or political campaigning or even child porn – they’ll just ban you and delete your content (appropriate legal authorities being given evidence-worthy copies of the site if necessary…).

          The TOS is not written to say that the hosts “must” ban you for any infraction of the TOS, only that they “may” ban you for such infractions.  No estoppel or similar claim to be had…

  12. These Terms of Service are pretty much the same as you’d find on any public forum, from Red State to Daily Kos and from the Denver Post to Fark.

    Everyone sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride just like you’ve been doing since you signed up – nothing is going to change that’s not required by law; the Dead Guvs have spoken thus, and we have no reason to doubt that.

    1. Point me to the Terms of Service on Daily Kos. They don’t exist. Here’s the privacy policy.

      Here’s RedState’s. There is no laundry list of things one is not allowed to post, and especially no ban on posting anything “involving political campaigns.”

      Same with the Denver Post, although I would never use the Denver Post as an example of what one should or shouldn’t do on the Internet.

      How about Fark? Nope. No such laundry list there.

      So your basic claim that the terms of service are “pretty much the same” as the sites you listed is just not supported by the facts.

      1. Daily Kos’s terms are essentially embedded in their FAQ, though not in legalese.  (see especially their section on writing diaries, which includes a laundry list of bannable offenses).

        Red State does in fact have a section in its TOS on what you can and cannot post, and it largely mirrors this site’s new policy, though it’s less verbose.

        Denver Post’s comment rules are a bit more extensive than their site TOS.

        Same with Fark.

        No, none of them have sections on political campaigning restrictions.  (The words in the Terms of Use say “involves … political campaigning”, not “involves political campaigns” – slight difference.  Given the political nature of this site, I think the Guvs would be wise to revisit this section of their TOS.)

        1. None of those you cite are part of the terms of service as a “a binding, legally enforceable agreement between you and us governing your access to and use of this blog.”

          Rules and norms are important, and they’re not a contract.

          Nobody (I would think) could argue that Pols can’t delete whatever they want or ban whoever they want for whatever reason, or for no reason.

          That’s different from telling me that I’m entering into a legal contract that they can sue me over.

          1. You violate their TOS, what are they going to seek in a court based on the terms of the contract?  Realistically, violating the TOS results in Colorado Pols’ ability to terminate the contract with full legal cover.  If you want to sue them over that, then their ass is covered.

            BTW, if you want to read something that’s almost exactly like this agreement, read Adobe’s Terms of Use, a service that thousands of people use daily.

            1. Anyone can sue anyone.

              And not even the litigious Denver Post has a terms of service document this sweeping or onerous.

              And I don’t really care about Adobe (which is also famously litigious). I don’t post on their blog.

              1. There are no specified penalties here other than banning.  If you were to disrupt their service, they could sue you for damages just as well without as with this contract.

                If you have a specific objection on which they might be able to sue for damages, make it known so that their lawyers can spend more of their massive Soros check to fix it.

                1. I’m not sure why we’re disagreeing here. I think I just more strenuously think there’s overkill and that this TOS is possibly more appropriate elsewhere.

                  I dislike heavy-handedness in general, and I particularly object on this site where chicanery is completely encouraged, yet the TOS flies in the face–both in substance and in tone–of the actual norms and intent of this site.

                  I am not afraid of being sued by Pols personally. I am concerned about the direction and intent of the legal mumbojumbo, as well as embedding standards of decorum in the middle of said legal mumbojumbo. And then add on to that the fact that many of the buried standards of decorum don’t actually apply, because if they did no one would participate.

      1. I read RedState the night Health Care Reform passed, and there was no decorum to be found. They’re just assclowns whose true colors can be seen when things don’t go their way, just like all hard right threats to our freedom.

  13. Input from an actual attorney at law. I know ohwellike and Danny the Red (hair) haven’t commented. Is anyone else here currently practicing law? (Apologies if anyone who has commented already fits that description – either I didn’t know that about you, or I didn’t see anything in your comment that shows that.)

  14. I’m out in Hawaii and was avoiding blogging. But I got a couple of emails about this. My $0.02 worth:

    First, this is all pretty standard – they tell you not to do anything that might be a problem so anything bad is not their fault. And they then say they are not responsible for enforcing the rules proactively so not seeing something is not their fault. Standard lawsuit avoidance.

    Second, the following makes me think this was pulled from a commercial software product license as it makes no sense for a blog or any SAAS offering:

    License.  CP grants you a personal, limited, non-transferable and non-exclusive right and license to use the Forums and Website on a single computer.

    And now back to the beach 🙂

    1. The Terms Of Use (not a standard phrase for a service, BTW – Acceptable Use Policy or Terms Of Service are the normal terms) look like they were pulled from somewhere with a very overactive legal department, probably in the software industry.  I’d expect a very similar TOS from Adobe’s or Microsoft’s forum pages, not from a political blog.

    2. I think CP would be wise to revisit the whole policy with the view that it appears to have come from a template not really designed for a political blog.

      A few examples:

      • The “involves political campaigning” phrase is too vague for a political blog.
      • The Copyright grant is too broad to encourage diarists to publish useful content. I was thinking of starting a diary series using some of my photo background, but will not do so under the new TOS.
      • The “includes any image of a person” phrase is ridiculous considering that this is, essentially, a blog about people; any one of us could take a picture at a rally and under these TOS would be prohibited from sharing that picture without permission of anyone in the photo, no matter how public the figure.
      • The “single computer” phrase is out of place; I post from multiple computers even in my own house.
    3. generated for multiple purposes. It doesn’t hurt to have irrelevant clauses in a contract (which the one you cited essentially is), just to be missing potentially relevant ones. So overkill is cheaper, since it requires fewer billable hours per client to draft (or can be acquired w/out recourse to a lawyer more easily, with more certainty of covering your bases). Anyway, that’s my guess.

        1. I thought of that even as I was writing it. I was referring to the specific kind of overkill that is the inclusion of irrelevant clauses that either can’t or reasonably won’t be applied (the single computer licensing clause, for instance). Last month, I signed a contract to do some independent conultancy work, and the contract was written for everybody and anybody who this particular LLC might contract with, so it included provisions to protect them against liability for, for instance, an accident associated with the contracted work. Since all of my work was on-line research, it’s hard to imagine how that could be applicable in my case. But when asked if there was any language in the contract that I objected to, I said “no,” since I really didn’t see such extraneous clauses as being problematic. I was referring to instances such as that, not instances in which it would actually have some kind of disincentivizing effect.

          I should have been more specific. Overkill is not always harmless, but some forms are, particularly when it involves provisions that can’t or won’t be applied. And companies will tend to consider it harmless unless or until it’s pointed out that some particular extraneous provision actually does harm, at which point they’ll have to decide whether the costs outweigh the benefits (mostly, having a cheap boilerplate contract to work from).

  15. .

    remember last month, Golden Eye ?

    He got banned.

    He just told Pols he was suing them for banning him, and this is what their atty advised.


Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

82 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!