> Now what do you think the words > mean, Clark? I'm just telling you how lawyers think. It isnt math. It isnt venn diagrams and sets and subsets. You can only read that phrase in conjuction with the entire phrase. I know what you are saying logically. I get that. But if you take your position and parse out the definition into three definitions as you do, then why do you need the first part of the definition? why do you even need the second part of the definition? if your interpretation is right, you dont. And lawyers dont read things that way. (dont mean that to be insulting, by the way, just a statement that lawyers look at things in silly ways). You try to give effect to the language. You dont want to read language a way that makes things a nullity. Plus, of your "three definitions" the first two are rather specific and the third is rather general. Which raises an interesting issue. But that is another thread.
Clark _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
