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

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1 to Robin's and general support for proposal

Carlton
==============================


On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:46 PM, 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
>
>
>
>