Thomas Seay wrote:
> Let's see. John Mage took a posting from this list and sent it into
> the National Lawyers Guild, ostensibly to get you in trouble.
>
> First of all, John sounds like a fink, and I would like to hear the
> fink's rationale for this action.
Gladly, but only once. "Fink's rationale" follows: I have belonged to the New York Chapter of the Guild for 34 years, I am proud to say. Nathan Newman signed the post in question as follows:
> Nathan Newman Vice President, NYC National Lawyers Guild Former
> National Vice President (Note my views do not reflect those of the
> NLG national leadership)
This implies*, that while his views do not reflect those of the NLG national leadership they _do_ reflect those of the NYC NLG leadership - expecially given that he had identified himself as "Nathan Newman Vice President, NYC National Lawyers Guild."
Upset were that to be the case, I forwarded the post as signed in the fashion set out above to the President of the NYC NLG and inquired if that implication were correct. I am very glad it is not.
john mage
*at least since 1311, during the reign of the great gay Edward II (_Thurmeton_ v. _Pouterel_ 63 Selden Soc. 216 at p.220). To spell it out, by qualifying a negative ("...do not reflect those of the NLG _national leadership_") to limit it to one of several possibilities makes the negative "pregnant" with the affirmation of the excluded option.