By the way, apropos targeting metaphors and the like

[Danny_J_Boggs at ca6.uscourts.gov]

I think we could just bring this thread to a conclusion by simply agreeing 
that :



All of MY SIDE's references and statements  are to be taken in the 
coolest, hip-ironic, culturally aware, benign-metaphorical way possible, 
(See Watts v. United States, and the conflicting interpretive modes the 
various judges/justices on the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals)

AND

All of YOUR SIDE's references and statements are to be taken in the most 
mindlessly literal, threatening way possible.



That should work for almost all of our commentators, of whatever 
persuasion.



Also, any charge against MY SIDE requires exquisite legally admissible 
proof of its accuracy, 

WHEREAS

any charge against YOUR SIDE must be true if it was asserted by anyone, 
anywhere.



People on MY SIDE are responsible only for what they said personally, in 
full-quotation context.

BUT

People on your side are responsible for the inferred implications of 
anything said by anyone who ever held any idea vaguely similar to what 
your people think.



OK?



 Danny J. Boggs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20100402/80aeb621/attachment.htm>