View Single Post
Posts: 46 | Thanked: 99 times | Joined on May 2009 @ Sydney, Australia
#36
Originally Posted by overfloat View Post
I'm not trying to redefine 'use' at all - it is a very vague term, that's my point.
You may not be aware of it, but you are definitely trying to do that. Any vagueness you see here is a product of your desire to exclude from the term "use" something that people would ordinarily understand to be "using" the device.

Originally Posted by overfloat View Post
If you want to get very technical and anal about it, which you apparently do...
What you describe perjoratively as anal is me interpreting the law based on actually being a practicing lawyer in the country where the law was passed. It's not a matter of being anal, it's a matter of having the training to know how statutes are interpreted by the courts and applying that to the words in the statute.

Originally Posted by overfloat View Post
"looking at anything that is in the phone."

Read that sentence again and tell me what 'in' means
Again, it's an ordinary word. Perhaps it will assist you if you read in the word "stored" in front (for illustration - don't assume the resulting sentence means exactly the same as that in the statute).

Originally Posted by overfloat View Post
- I highly doubt that this is a direct quote, even though you happily presented it as one.
I would suggest you go and look at the amendment before you start throwing around accusations that I am being dishonest. Google will find it.

Last edited by trollo; 2009-10-15 at 22:24.