Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> > [...] >> >> >> One does not "plead" facts. >> >> > >> >> > Uh. Try googling "plead facts". >> >> >> >> Try googling "GPL FAQ". >> > >> > And what's your point? The phrase "plead facts" is used by courts. >> > It's legal concept. >> >> Not really. > > Uh. You're in fact making yourself look like an idiot. > > http://www.google.com/search?q=%22plead+facts%22
I did not deny that "plead facts" may be used as a shorthand in court language, but it is not a legal concept. One pleads findings of facts, not the facts themselves. Try reading a dictionary, the entries for "plead" and "facts". Anyway, do you want to imply that courts are to be considered as always right? Fine with me, it will cut short your bickering about the Wallace case. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
