On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 06:05:16AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > Look at what you wrote... if the clause requires interpretation and you > allow for the possibility that he has his own, presumably different > interpretation, then surely it is at least possible that it is not > unambiguous? :)
Experience reading U.S. Supreme Court decisions on Constitutional law has taught me that it is *not* the case that unambiguous language is not affording of perverse interpretations. :) Hello, Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas! On a more serious note, it is better for me to *ask* Martin his opinion than presume his agreement. -- G. Branden Robinson | People are equally horrified at Debian GNU/Linux | hearing the Christian religion [EMAIL PROTECTED] | doubted, and at seeing it http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | practiced. -- Samuel Butler
pgpt3tyqTWTug.pgp
Description: PGP signature
