On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 12:16:09AM -0700, Brian F. Kimball wrote: > At first I thought "and/or" was awkward, but the constitution uses it > six times, so it's not a problem. :) and/or is legalese for what most human being understand by 'or'. In legal documents, 'or' may be interpreted as an 'exclusive' or, so 'and/or' is used that there be no doubt. Jules -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (w... Manoj Srivastava
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (w... William Ono
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (w... Michael Bramer
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (w... Jules Bean
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (w... Clay Crouch
- Foundational Document Protection (was Re: C... Bolan Meek
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (w... Manoj Srivastava
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (w... Steve Greenland
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (w... Manoj Srivastava
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (w... Brian F. Kimball
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (w... Jules Bean
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (w... Manoj Srivastava
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (w... Herbert Xu
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (w... Craig Sanders
- Proposed amendment to Manoj's proposal Branden Robinson
- Re: Proposed amendment to Manoj's proposal Edward C. Lang
- Re: Proposed amendment to Manoj's proposal Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: Proposed amendment to Manoj's proposal John Goerzen
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (w... Taketoshi Sano
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (was Re: CFV: N... Bolan Meek
- Re: Constitutional, Parliamentary Issues (was Re: C... Craig Sanders

