Undisclosure --was-- Re: [BC] A Pig in a Polk

[Stan Tacker]

You must be careful not to forget Article 5, section 1 (iii), wherein the
party targeted for undisclosure after disclosure is required to unindemnify
and persue the disclosing parties for and about any claims, suits, demands
or damages arising from or related to the disclosed/undisclosed material.
It further provides that the disclosing parties may, after written notice to
the undisclosing parties, undertake to prosecute the disclosure, thereby
effectively ****ing themselves.





-----Original Message-----
From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Rich Wood
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 6:48 PM
To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
Subject: Re: Undisclosure --was-- Re: [BC] A Pig in a Polk

------ At 06:17 PM 8/26/2006, Cowboy wrote: -------

>  Sorry, John.....
>  Article 4 section 16, subsection 32, paragraph Y line 437 clearly
>  allows for undisclosure of previously disclosed information EXCEPT
>  when originally disclosed on internet !
>
>  Anything you put on internet is FOREVER !!
>  ( or in perpetuity, whichever comes first )

Article 4 section 16, subsection 32, paragraph Y line 586 requires 
that the person targeted for undisclosure after disclosure is 
required to agree to the undisclosure. If the undisclosure target 
does not agree, it leaves the party of the first part with knowledge 
of the parts of the second party. That leaves the undisclosure party 
at risk for future disclosure of the second party's parties. Such a 
disclosure by the disagreeing party negates the undisclosure and 
results in participants of the initial disclosure remembering the 
disclosed data and rendering the undisclosure null and void.

Examples of undisclosures being rendered invalid can be found in the 
annals of the old Soviet Union finding disgreeing parties disclosing 
the existence of persons declared to have never existed. The very act 
of undisclosing without the agreement of all parties at the party has 
been shown to be not only ineffective but damaging to the credibility 
of the undiscloser.

These terms were ratified at the NAB Convention when members refused 
to send representatives to Geneva and sent them to Akron, instead. It 
was agreed that, even though held in Akron, terms of the convention 
would have the same validity as if it had been held in Geneva. 
Geneva, Switzerland, not Geneva, New York.

As the target of the undisclosure I can be persuaded, for a price, to 
agree to a proper undisclosure that will confuse even those who 
uncover information on the Internet. Such agreement will render all 
data properly obfuscated and subject to years of debate resulting in 
a relatively secure undisclosure.

Name your price.

Rich



_______________________________________________

The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More! 
www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com