On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:26:32PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote: > > > If the law says something shall consist of certain things, then > > > there is no reason to assume that something else may also > > > qualify. Only the notice as given in this section allows you > > > to get the effect of 401(d). > > > > Here's a reason: > > > > "(c)" is the closest you can get to circle-C in one-dimensional ASCII > > text. It's a pretty close reproduction of the symbol. > > This is an argument that says a court ought to interpret "(c)" > as the c-in-a-circle symbol required by 401(b). It does not > say that "(c)" should be regarded as an equivalent (that is, > as something else that produces the same thing). Now I am > confused; are you arguing that "(c)" should be seen as a > badly drawn c-in-a-circle symbol, or as a different symbol > that courts should treat as if it were a c-in-a-circle? Either. All I need to make my point is to demonstrate that the sequence "(c)" could reasonably be accepted. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgpJDrbp31Gy2.pgp
Description: PGP signature