Re: [soac-mapo] Another proposal for discussion...

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agree

On Sep 2, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:

> 
> +1 - it sets the bar much higher.
> 
> KK
> 
> 
> On 02/09/2010 20:46, "Robin Gross" <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> The formulation should be conjunctive.
> 
> be highly offensive
> AND unambiguously offensive
> AND profoundly objectionable
> AND without redeeming public value
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Sep 2, 2010, at 7:05 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> 
> 
> Richard,
> I like much of this suggestion.
> 
> Questions
> 1. Did this language come from any other source or is it your own Richard?
> "be highly and unambiguously offensive, profoundly objectionable and without
> redeeming public value will be rejected. "
> 
> 2. Is the test intended to be AND or OR ?
> ie
> be highly offensive
> AND unambiguously offensive
> AND profoundly objectionable
> AND without redeeming public value
> 
> or
> be highly offensive
> AND unambiguously offensive
> OR profoundly objectionable
> AND without redeeming public value
> 
> or
> be highly offensive
> AND unambiguously offensive
> OR profoundly objectionable
> OR without redeeming public value
> 
> 3. What did you not like about the EUTM tested tests of
> "directly against the basic norms of .. society".
> 
> "clear offensive impact on people of normal sensitivity".
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>