[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC...

To: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC...
From: David Cole <dave@nk7z.net>
Reply-to: dave@nk7z.net
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:29:48 -0700
List-post: <rfi@contesting.com">mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
Hi Charlie,

Is "Barbershop Advice" an actual legal term, and is there precedent for
it's use in the courts?  If so, could you supply a link please.  

I just do what the lawyer tells me to do to reduce risk as much as
possible...  The entire issue is not fun-- I increase my lawsuit risk,
while at the same time increasing the chances of getting shot by some
non legal farmer, all for my hobby, and I am not even breaking any laws,
or FCC rules to boot.  A very messy place, but I love ham radio as a
hobby and I am not going to give it up...

Thanks and 73's,
For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
for MixW support see;
for Dopplergram information see:
for MM-SSTV see:

On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 01:35 +0000, n0tt1@juno.com wrote:
> > There are other things the lawyer advised not to suggest, such as
> > telling light selling outlet that a certain type of light is RF 
> > quiet,
> > even if we can't see any RFI, and even if it is RFI quiet-- if we 
> > are
> > wrong, then we could be sued for telling them it was clean when it 
> > was
> > not, 
> Lawsuit?  Not likely.  It's called "Barbershop Advice" and a person
> should not be held liable for giving that kind of advice....run through
> the
> courts many years ago.
> OTOH, if the advice is paid, professional advice, and the advice was
> wrong,
> perhaps causing harm, destruction of property, etc, then that's a
> liability issue.
> Advice given on these email "reflectors" is Barbershop Advice. 
> 73,
> Charlie, N0TT
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi

RFI mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>