home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky talk.abortion:48234 alt.flame:14850 alt.fan.kevin-darcy:585 misc.legal:20058
- Path: sparky!uunet!caen!sdd.hp.com!nobody
- From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy,misc.legal
- Subject: Re: Susan Garvin on Forgery
- Date: 17 Nov 1992 07:56:36 -0800
- Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
- Lines: 24
- Message-ID: <1eb4nkINNhir@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
- References: <nyikos.721348444@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <1dom5qINN82@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> <nyikos.721977402@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
-
- > Peter and me:
- >>.Sounds about right. A lot of "bizarre" laws get to look just a tad less
- >>.bizarre when you read the fine print. South Carolina has laws against
- >>."adultery" and "fornication", but to be illegal these must involve either
- >>.cohabitation or habitual actions.
- >
- >>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- >>How does cohabitation and habit make the illegalization of adultery or
- >>fornication 'less bizarre'?
- >
- >Do I need to explain the term "a tad" to you, Adrienne?
-
-
- No, Peter. You need to explain what you mean in order for us to be able
- to understand you.
-
- I notice that you fail to answer the question, in order to make a snide
- remark instead.
-
- How does cohabitation and habit make the illegalization of adultery or
- fornication 'less bizarre'? Even a 'tad'?
-
- Adrienne Regard
-
-