>Johnny, Johnny, Johnny, there you go again, drawing conclusions where none are legitimate...
>

We'll see about that....




>SNIP>>
>>Indeed it was considered that I ONCE had (despite simply using a part of a registered trademark in the message in question) by the proprietor of the UT. And he dealt with me about the matter (you didn't know that eh).
>>>
>>
>>Trademarks are context-sensitive. I could easily enumerate a laundry list of reasons - legal reasons - why your argument does not hold water. What your proffer here is a pretextual reason for your actions..
>
>Whatever... this is not a major point in the entire discussion.


How is that??? You justify your use of the term BECUASE it is a Canadian Registered Trademark.


>>
>>Also, I would not be too quick to bet on what I did not know...;)
>
>The wink is supposed to convey some form of friendliness?...HA!!!

No...just a reminder that you should not be too quick to assume I don't know something.

Rest of post read and acknowledged...

John