zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. JumpCr+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-05-23 14:59:30
If this is really your hill to die on, go for it. Using “prosecute” to refer to civil litigation is not standard English in any dialect circa 1850.
replies(1): >>morale+d4
2. morale+d4[view] [source] 2024-05-23 15:20:51
>>JumpCr+(OP)
Easy peasy, yes/no answer.

From your understanding, is looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) prosecutable or not?

replies(1): >>JumpCr+M5
◧◩
3. JumpCr+M5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-23 15:29:12
>>morale+d4
> is looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) prosecutable or not?

No. And if a lawmaker claimed they would like it to be, and then claimed they meant civilly litigible, they’d be labelled dishonest. (Even if it was an honest mistake.)

replies(1): >>morale+kk
◧◩◪
4. morale+kk[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-23 16:36:45
>>JumpCr+M5
>Looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) is not prosecutable.

Great, then we agree. :^)

replies(1): >>CRConr+pL8
◧◩◪◨
5. CRConr+pL8[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-05-27 09:49:50
>>morale+kk
Yeah, I agree too. It's not prosecutable... But it is sue-able.

So, to return to your original point: Did you have one?

[go to top]