On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I stand by my man, straw or otherwise. In any given jurisdiction > there are rather clear rules about how to extract meaning from the > available evidence of a contract between two parties (or more, if it's > a contract to form a corporation; thanks, Batist). If you profess to > be making a legal argument, then the rules, if any, that you seem to > be using are more appropriate for a statute or a magical creature of > copyright law.
If these rules are both clear, and applicable, and I'm approaching the problem incorrectly, you should be able to find some sentence I've written which is clearly in violation of these rules and you should be able to point out at least one of the flaws in my presentation -- you should be able to identify one of these clear rules which I've violated. If you can't do so, I suggest that you do not have a valid argument. If you can't trivially do so, with a concise citation, I suggest that you also don't understand these rules very well. I will grant that there are a number of steps and issues which would have to be addressed in court, which I've not addressed here. I've simply assumed that they are addressable. These other steps might very well involve issues which would determine the outcome of a court case. However, rather than drown in detail trying to focus on things you're not talking about, I've choosen to address the some of the points you've raised. It's really not my problem if you're not interested in talking about the points you've raised. -- Raul
