On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 09:08 PM, Mac Norton wrote:
Not sure I get the point. Is there a five year statute or limitations on what you say, or is the article so outdated in context as to be irrelevant? MacN
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 08:00 PM, Jim Choate wrote:
Speaking of splitting the cake, who gets the trim?
That's a 5-year-old cite.
You obviously used a search engine to search for related articles from a post of mine. Have you no shame?
Think about the issue. If someone takes a post of mine, or yours, or anybody's, and says something _honest_ like, for example, "That's an interesting point. Doing some digging I found this article from several years ago...." then there would be no issue. I think this is the way Bill Stewart, for example, would begin an article. Choate, however, never does this. He just regurgitates cites he has found with search engines. I called him on this. That's all. Finding a 5-year-old cite, obviously the result of searching on a them, but without even commenting on context or relevance, is phony. It's the equivalent of a nonlawyer like me taking some scrap of legal comment and then quoting a legal precedent without any context. For example, "But Lopez v. Quesedilla, 16th, 3B, IIc established decedent's writ of certiori, am I not correct?" Phoniness squared. If you don't see this, you should become a lawyer. --Tim May