From: "Robert Comer" 

> If you think "affronts to personal dignity" isn't vague then
please list
> for me those things that are and aren't violations of that standard.

It isn't vague at all if one has sociology training and a very little bit
of time to study the group you're targeting.

--
Bob Comer



"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:45248ef1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Its vague because its vague.  It is so vague that if the same language
> were made part of some USA criminal statute the ACLU, et al would
> immediately oppose it being imposed on any run of the mill killer/murderer
> as being unconstitutionally vague in that it is so vague a person could
> not determine what is prohibited and what isn't prohibited with any
> rational degree of certainty.
>
> If you think "affronts to personal dignity" isn't vague then
please list
> for me those things that are and aren't violations of that standard.
>
>
> Gary
>
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:4524709a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> No one else has found it "vague" so far.
>>
>> It's only vague because it doesn't say what they want it to say.
>>
>> --
>> Bob Comer
>>
>>
>> "Phil Payne" 
wrote in message
>> news:4524467d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>>> news:452402ff$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> Because the language being dealt with is so vague ..
>>>
>>> No one else has found it "vague" so far.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5