3 ms·
I think the OP's point was that you can argue against parallel construction even more effectively if you can demonstrate a case where the hidden side of the par
by johncolanduoni 10y ago
I think the OP's point was that you can argue against parallel construction even more effectively if you can demonstrate a case where the hidden side of the parallel construction isn't even illegal can already be problematic, you have a stronger argument against it.
Either that or they're really pro-ruined lives?
- a3n 10y ago> a case where the hidden side of the parallel construction isn't even illegal Agreed. In that case they're misleading the court and the defense. Which is probably, you know, illegal. :)
- themartorana 10y agoI don't think you have to be "pro" ruined lives to be apathetic towards individuals whose lives were ruined.