[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Well, they knew it was illegal, or maybe they knew that they knew that is was illegal, but much more likely, they didn’t know that they knew it was illegal. In other words, their knowing it was or might have been illegal has no bearing on whether they didn’t know, that if they knew it was illegal, that it would not matter unless they themselves knew that they knew it was illegal. Because, had they known it was illegal and yet not acted in an illegal fashion, then their knowing that the act was illegal might have placed them in a position of having known that they were not engaged in any illegal activity. Thus, they could not have possibly known that their activities we have already shown they did not engage in which they never knew were illegal even though they were not engaged in any such activity could have been interpreted as having been in conflict with the law...but certainly not illegal. There is, of course, a difference. Having thus not committed any illegal acts, they should therefore not come under scrutiny for having not known that what they were doing was illegal since it was not disclosed that activities in conflict with the law are not necessarily illegal.

[kiryandil]

Because "Is is".

LOL! Great post! :)

[rhubarbk]

Well, they knew it was illegal, or maybe they knew that they knew that is was illegal, but much more likely, they didn’t know that they knew it was illegal. In other words, their knowing it was or might have been illegal has no bearing on whether they didn’t know, that if they knew it was illegal, that it would not matter unless they themselves knew that they knew it was illegal. Because, had they known it was illegal and yet not acted in an illegal fashion, then their knowing that the act was illegal might have placed them in a position of having known that they were not engaged in any illegal activity. Thus, they could not have possibly known that their activities we have already shown they did not engage in which they never knew were illegal even though they were not engaged in any such activity could have been interpreted as having been in conflict with the law...but certainly not illegal. There is, of course, a difference. Having thus not committed any illegal acts, they should therefore not come under scrutiny for having not known that what they were doing was illegal since it was not disclosed that activities in conflict with the law are not necessarily illegal.

I guess that it all depends on what the definition of is is. Sheesh!!!