Typically, a court will not allow
pedantic interpretations where the intention is as clear as these clauses, however, for the sake of argument.
If we avoid semantics or
pedantic interpretations of what words mean, do you actually dispute the basic result of Cook et al..
Second, even on
the pedantic interpretation, 82 % of scientists in general accept the antropogenic origin of recent global warming.
Again, whatever the technical answer may be,
a pedantic interpretation wouldn't stand up in court?
Not exact matches
I am tempted to say «no one» is so
pedantic as to insist on the first
interpretation.
I know my
interpretation is
pedantic, but that is why I asked about simply not answering questions asked by the officer, rather then playing the game by turning the question back on them.