On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> One disclaimer can allow the rest of the message to say whatever it >> wants. Perhaps the rule can be worded such that the only illegal uses >> of a trademark are things that can be considered falsehoods. > > Knowingly posting falsehoods TTPF with the intent to deceive is illegal.
Banning it would be redundant, you're saying? I think I like that. On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:38 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> this proposed rule would need to be at Power 3 >> as it directly forbids the sort of regularity of communication that's >> essential for the healthy function of the nomic. > > Did you just say that a relative clause claiming that something is > necessary for the health of something else has an effect besides > clarifying the remainder of the sentence it's in? > > I see what you did there. Well, it is restrictive. A lot like saying "I kicked the fence that is red" when there is also a green fence. --Warrigal
