Simon Stelling wrote: > Right. So you agree with the intention, but not with the wording. This > is exactly what I'm after. At least here in Europe, judges have to > 'interprete' the law. They judge whether somebody is guilty or not based > on the _intentions_ that are behind the law. If the law has flaws in its > wording, nobody cares about it, because the _intentions_ are important, > not the wording.
That's one reason I would like to greatly simplify the "laws" around here -- less opportunity to argue that the wording doesn't explicitly prohibit something that's obviously wrong and/or stupid. Thanks, Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
