Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bayushi_seikuro" data-source="post: 8898723" data-attributes="member: 7024851">I think a clear-cut ruling in either direction, while messy in the short term, would be a great step of knowing what exact boundaries are where, and what kind of language is needed going further.We think we're good with legalese, even with well-read lawyers on here, but until the courts actually say something one way or another, we're back at Bill Clinton-levels of legalese.A refresher from CNN, with what happened regarding the legal use of the word 'it':&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/bctest092198_4.htm" target="_blank">The question</a>: “Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there was ‘no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton,’ was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?”&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/bctest092198_4.htm" target="_blank">Clinton responded. </a>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; The <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/is" target="_blank">definition</a> of the word “is,” according to Webster’s Dictionary, is: “present tense third-person singular of be.” Obviously.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/17/speech/transcript.html" target="_blank">Later that day</a>, the President said of his testimony, “While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.” He also came clean on his affair with Lewinsky.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bayushi_seikuro, post: 8898723, member: 7024851"] I think a clear-cut ruling in either direction, while messy in the short term, would be a great step of knowing what exact boundaries are where, and what kind of language is needed going further. We think we're good with legalese, even with well-read lawyers on here, but until the courts actually say something one way or another, we're back at Bill Clinton-levels of legalese. A refresher from CNN, with what happened regarding the legal use of the word 'it': [URL='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/bctest092198_4.htm']The question[/URL]: “Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there was ‘no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton,’ was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?” “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” [URL='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/bctest092198_4.htm']Clinton responded. [/URL] The [URL='https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/is']definition[/URL] of the word “is,” according to Webster’s Dictionary, is: “present tense third-person singular of be.” Obviously. [URL='http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/17/speech/transcript.html']Later that day[/URL], the President said of his testimony, “While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.” He also came clean on his affair with Lewinsky. [/QUOTE]

Verification