| 270Report |
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 07:56
>>269
I was referring to >>253, which is seperate from what you're talking about, I presume. (it would really help if the anonymous all used a unique identifier name so we know who we're talking to... like everyone knows that LLz refers to the same person.)
My point against you (I presume you were >>251) is that the term "appears to be" in 1466A is too vague. I'd like to see it challenged and redefined to be more specific, but I don't think anyone here has the resources to do so. (heck, I'd like to see the whole child porn issue to be challenged, but that's a little too optimistic.)
|