Section 93

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Section 93

Post by Arthur Rubin »

And as to whether pigs raised on wire mesh so their feet never touch the ground are "birds" for the purpose of Jewish dietary law....
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95
Weston White

Re: Section 93

Post by Weston White »

grixit wrote:I read about a product labelling case once. A maker of turkey ham wanted to be allowed to skip the turkey part and just label it "ham". The judge quoted Lewis Carroll "...and whether pigs have wings", before stating that they in fact don't, and denying the petition.

By TP logic, that makes Lewis Carroll part of our code of law.

Which means you can make words mean what you want them to say.

But so can the judge.
Nope, because unlike your type we realize that such a quote serves to make a very valid point, turkey is to ham, as ham is to turkey; one is not the other, nor does combining them both serve to make them one in the same.
User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Re: Section 93

Post by webhick »

107 posts. Locky-locky. Time to start a new thread, folks.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie