Sat Aug 29 16:38:27 CDT 2009 Eactivist wrote:
> In a message dated 8/29/2009 2:12:23 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, pml at web-options.com writes: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7673591.stm > > > > ============ > > What? I found the legal ruling that since "God" had no known > > address and papers couldn't be served to him/her because of > > that, quite sane and reasonable. > > > > Maybe. On the other hand he/she/they/it is/are omnipresent, so it doesn't > matter where you serve them, and omniscient, so he/she/it/they know/s the > papers have been served. > > Bob > > > ========== > True. But think of the problems if he/she/it/they actually showed up in > court. > > So it was a good argument for the judge to use to deter that. > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) I can be silly all day (and into the night, for that > matter). It would have to be (transferred) referred to the Court of Higher-Authority! :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
