----- Original Message ----- From: "John Mage" <jmage at panix.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 5:45 PM Subject: Re: The thread previously known as 'Lerner presumably'
> 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.
=============
Who needs inductive logic when you've got some lawyers coming up with such justifications for creating "space" to exercise the will to misrepresent? Nothing in Nathan's signing implies any such intent except for what the rest of us want to infer. Damn that indeterminacy.
Ian