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

[Stuart Lawley <stuart@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In a personal level I agree but don't think that gonna fly with the GAC.


Stuart Lawley

Via Wireless


On Sep 2, 2010, at 5:53 PM, Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>