. wrote, [on 4/29/2009 10:07 PM]: >> Perhaps you missed the second parenthetical bit that Badri wrote above? > > No, I didnt. That our courts are a lot more tolerant towards those who > indulge in perjury is the disturbing part.
Er...you *are* aware that the definition of perjury hinges on "know" and not "suspect", yes? >>>> As for "terrorist enjoys state hospitality at taxpayer expense", I don't >>>> know where to begin. >>> Then dont !! >> Can you expand on what you meant by this effusion? I'm curious. > > A lot less effusive to his suggestive contextomy [quote] you take a > pitchfork and stand outside his > jail shouting slogans - you'll probably draw enough people to create a mob > quite quickly and you can go in and take him out, along with the last > shreds of the rule of law in India. [/unquote] Yes, but what did *you* _mean_ by that? Udhay, ignoring the temptation to riff on "suggestive contextomy" -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
