Rjack <[email protected]> writes: >> (I'm assuming that Rjack's recent sources of authority, namely, >> answers.com and merriam-webster.com, will not suffice here.)
>I had hoped after trying to teach you that the meaning of the term >"illegal" changed with a change contexts, that a little something >would have soaked in. It obviously didn't. Well, consider this. We have a couple of hundred years (maybe more?) of case law discussing when a contract should be unenforceable due to illegality. But ignoring all that case law, you went instead to answers.com and merriam-webster.com to prove your point. I was sardonically pointing out that you quote the authorities you want to quote, not the authorities most relevant to the issue. Now for obvious reasons I don't expect our friend amicus_curious to cite any case law. But from you, Rjack, I had expected better. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
