I don't get it. Was I abnormally condescending? The guy wants a philosophical discussion premised on a legal mistake. It's like saying, I want a philosophical discussion of Intelligent Design (taken as a true theory). I'm not sure is worth going on about, but I'd like not to tee people off if I can avoid it. So what did I do wrong?
--- Eubulides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kenneth Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I want to make something clear, here, for others: I > am not asking for > cheat notes. I can handle myself in life. > > I am asking about the foundational elements of law > (I think I even > mentioned the philosophical base) in a manner our > favorite bearded > Rhenish son might -- because it might relate to the > things economists > write about. > > Personally, I have yet to see a real divide between > law and economics. > > Ken. > > P.S. Yes, I see the divide in the way the lawyers > fill in the forms. > > > > ================== > > "The poet and the wise man stand behind the gun." > [Ian Anderson] > _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
