Sorry, that was supposed to be off list. Apologies to Kenneth Campbell, et al.
--- andie nachgeborenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
