[AndrewC]

The question is whether it's covered by the agreement. It would be on the same level as "Dumbski" and I believe A-G said it was allowed.

I think that means, yes. I think that the agreement is insane and appears to have been fashioned by drunks.

[headsonpikes]

I don't think I've ever learned less science in my life than on this thread placemarker.

[Nataku X]

You are obviously angry, A-C, and I don't blame you. I had no involvement in the agreement drafting, and I already said that what RWP & Aric2000 did not do the right thing. What they said was not in the spirit of the agreement.

But, judgement in courts are never decided in the "spirit of the law", but instead on strictly technical terms of what the law says instead of what the law is intended by its makers to prevent. What can we do, except to define the law more clearly?