need legal contracts for selling domains

**dvdrip** · 12-02-2002, 06:32 PM

Well somebody didn't gave eddie1278 (I don't know who subpar is) a legal advice. boss just posted a sample. I was curious to find out why this was amusing. I just wanted to learn something from the lawyer.

Realistically why would you ask me why I asked something someone else?

**dvdrip** · 12-02-2002, 06:37 PM

Well you may be right but maybe it is just something really simple.
Maybe a zipped .pdf.

I am waiting for boss to reply.

Originally posted by jberryhill
"Maybe the contract was in .pdf so you may not find it in google ever. "

Google indexes .pdf documents now. Besides, "boss" says he found it on Google.

Since the document doesn't appear to be findable on Google, then either "boss" managed to find it just before it was taken off of the internet and fell out of the Google index (which would be odd, considering the normal latency time for Google - you would expect the search result to hang around for a couple of weeks even if the link is dead), or "boss" is not telling the truth because he is, or is associated, with one of the parties to the agreement, and has now realized that it had a confidentiality provision.

**IPatlas** · 12-02-2002, 06:38 PM

Lawyers aren't gods. They went to school and work in the area of wordsmithing and the technical aspect of negotiation within set societal norms.

For some written aspects of transacting, to bypass a lawyer would be like bypassing a butcher in obtaining your hamburger dinner. You could bloody the carpet while slaughtering the beef.

**boss** · 12-02-2002, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by dvdrip
Well you may be right but maybe it is just something really simple.
Maybe a zipped .pdf.
I am waiting for boss to reply.

**boss** · 12-02-2002, 07:41 PM

con't

**boss** · 12-02-2002, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by jberryhill
"Maybe the contract was in .pdf so you may not find it in google ever. "

Google indexes .pdf documents now. Besides, "boss" says he found it on Google.

<b>Since the document doesn't appear to be findable on Google</b>, then either "boss" managed to find it just before it was taken off of the internet and fell out of the Google index (which would be odd, considering the normal latency time for Google - you would expect the search result to hang around for a couple of weeks even if the link is dead), or <b>"boss" is not telling the truth</b> because he is, or is associated, with one of the parties to the agreement, and has now realized that it had a confidentiality provision.

Dont accuse someone of being *UNTRUTHFUL* because you LACK the ability to do basic research. Next time when something is considered not "FINDABLE" by you, just remember that it is not because it doesn't exist, but you are just too dumb to find it.

**boss** · 12-02-2002, 07:52 PM

cont

**jberryhill** · 12-02-2002, 07:56 PM

Ah, it was a Google newsgroup search, and not a Google web search. Well, that certainly explains it.

Interestingly, someone in that thread posted as a followup:

"so much for section 6 CONFIDENTIALITY"

And for...

"Dont accuse someone of being *UNTRUTHFUL* because you LACK the ability to do basic research. "

Nobody was accused of being untruthful. That was stated as one alternative hypothesis among several.

Irrelevant, yes. Untruthful, no.

**boss** · 12-02-2002, 08:10 PM

Let me layout your accusations

Originally posted by jberryhill
Since the document doesn't appear to be findable on Google, then either

Hypothesis #1: "boss" "managed" to find something which you explicitly stated would be an impossiblility "considering the normal latency of time" for google to remove a document. The document could not have just "fell out of google index."

Originally posted by jberryhill
"boss" managed to find it just before it was taken off of the internet and fell out of the Google index (which would be odd, considering the normal latency time for Google - you would expect the search result to hang around for a couple of weeks even if the link is dead),

Hypothesis #2: If Hypothesis #1 is an impossibility, the only possible alternative would be Hypothesis #2 -- that "boss" is *lying* about finding the document on google.

Originally posted by jberryhill
or "boss" is not telling the truth because he is, or is associated, with one of the parties to the agreement, and has now realized that it had a confidentiality provision.

This only shows you can't perform research

**jberryhill** · 12-02-2002, 08:21 PM

#1 and #2 were both premised on the "apparent" non-findability of the agreement, which is resolved by the explanation that it wasn't a Google web search, but it was a Google newsgroup search. #1 seemed unlikely, but not impossible. It is also true that Google gives different results depending on one's country of origin.

In context, I had said I would be curious to know how the search was done, since I had incorrectly assumed that you meant a Google web search. Omigoodness, my assumption was incorrect - somebody call the newspapers.

The agreement still remains a relic of the time when NSI was the only domain registrar, and is irrelevant to the type of agreement that the original poster was seeking. So, I remain humbled by having exposed my inability to do irrelevant research to obtain the wrong answer.

heh. Lighten up.

**boss** · 12-02-2002, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by jberryhill
The agreement still remains a relic of the time when NSI was the only domain registrar, and is irrelevant to the type of agreement that the original poster was seeking. So, I remain humbled by having exposed my inability to do irrelevant research to obtain the wrong answer.

Why would the sample Domain Name Transfer and Assignment Agreement form be a relic? You can revise it to suit your needs (if you needed a domain transfer agreement). You can take out NSI and substitute in any registrar you want. Anybody know with what type of agreement the original poster is looking for? I just posted a "sample form." (See title of my previous post)

Morever, you weren't doing irrelevant research... you were trying but were unable to *REPRODUCE* my search to find the document I found on google.

**boss** · 12-02-2002, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by jberryhill
#1 and #2 were both premised on the "apparent" non-findability of the agreement, which is resolved by the explanation that it wasn't a Google web search, but it was a Google newsgroup search. #1 seemed unlikely, but not impossible. It is also true that Google gives different results depending on one's country of origin.

In context, I had said I would be curious to know how the search was done, since I had incorrectly assumed that you meant a Google web search. Omigoodness, my assumption was incorrect - somebody call the newspapers.

It doesn't matter you made a wrong assumption, but you accused someone of "possibly" lying.

**WildCard** · 12-03-2002, 03:54 PM

Realistically you should have mentioned you got that contract from a newsgroup.

Also, the guy was trying to verify the info you found in the global library we call google. He couldn't find it, and at a bare minimum he is computer/internet competent.

Given your computer ability, what would have been your conclusion had you been in his shoes?

-WC-

**boss** · 12-03-2002, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by WildCard
Realistically you should have mentioned you got that contract from a newsgroup.

why should i mention i got the contract from a newsgroup? It is not a secret that google cache newsgroups. He should have asked for clarification and waited for my response before starting to accuse me of possibly lying about where I got the contract.

**Nexus** · 03-07-2004, 10:53 AM

Boss, you should lighten up. I make it a point to note whenever someone makes an unflattering remark, couched in a hypothetical. And to be honest, people can stick much much more negative and insulting statements in hypotheticals than "maybe you aren't telling the truth". The shorter your response to it (like ONE Google link like THIS ONE), the more integrity you keep. I feel bad that you had to make screenshots. The document is still there on Google. Defensiveness begetts suspicion and blame, even unwarranted.

~ Nexus

**prkeating** · 12-05-2005, 12:41 PM

[QUOTE=jberryhill ...or "boss" is not telling the truth because he is, or is associated, with one of the parties to the agreement, and has now realized that it had a confidentiality provision.[/QUOTE]

OR, Boss forgot to read it to make sure that the names were in fact obliterate from the copy he sent out - either way I agree with John on this one - it is funny!!

But then again it is much like people who post comments on boards without realizing that much of it turns up in searches.

Keep em straight John.