[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The paranoia over this issue is borderline ridiculous.
Well, some here may be suffering from paranoia over the issue, I'm simply discussing the way it's worded. And I'll stand by my assertion that the wording does not constrain them, even though I know the risk of their overreaching is virtually nil. There's an "argument" (you might say) going on in Jolly Old Blighty right now about an "Extreme Porn" law that's either being knocked around in Parliament or has already passed but not yet come into effect. One of the most accurate comments I've heard through the furor appeared in an article in "The Register" (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/19/extreme_guidance/). "However, [the West Midlands Police CID] further pointed out that when it came to interpreting the law, Ministerial statements were largely worthless. The courts would look at what was written into statute: not what was handed out in the press releases." My experience with contract law is that it's much the same. What's actually written in the contract is paramount, posturing before or after entering into the contract notwithstanding. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
