[unshavedyak]

I think i agree with you (but what do i know, hah), but it sounds like it's useful to know we're in the wrong here. Which is to say, this seems to suggest we should alter behavior with these types of things to ensure specificity and explicitness.

[throwaway09223]

We're not in the wrong here. Judges produce absurd findings with regularity -- this case is newsworthy because the finding is surprising and controversial.

If you paw around a bit in law you'll find judges sometimes going out of their way to misconstrue extremely explicit statements to reach the conclusion they want to reach. Being explicit can help, but there's no way to be 100% sure.

[unshavedyak]

> We're not in the wrong here. Judges produce absurd findings with regularity -- this case is newsworthy because the finding is surprising and controversial.

Well, i'm wrong enough in that i don't want something i say to be taken to court when i could have, easily, been more explicit. "Wrong" in the sense that it leaves myself open to needless outcomes.

I generally want to avoid judges at all cost, heh.