>Can we please have an end of this discussion/debate via e-mail? Thank you! >- Murray Watson

Any reasonable person would conclude that in order for the statement "The Source of the Originals" to be accurate, Linotype need only be the source of two or more 'originals'. No one could argue that this statement is incorrect.

Cheers, Si

> How long will Mr. Bruno Steinert stick
> to his false and misleading statement?

How long will you keep brandishing that blunt, smelly axe?
The blade is going to fall on your head if you keep shaking it that hard.

hhp

The German Supreme Court recently had to decide this case:

A bus tourism company invited people to a bus tour. The company said in advertisements that the bus tourists will be given "a delicious meal". In fact, they got a meal, but it was "a soup with beans". The Supreme Court judged this as "criminal advertising", and the business manager of the bus company got a one-year stretch (see German Supreme Court record BGH 3 StR 11/02).

Now compare the "delicious meal" buyers to the "Basic Commercial" buyers. Do the font buyers get the "original" designed in 1900 by "the source of the originals", i.e. do they get "a delicious meal"? Or do they get a clone made in 1958, i.e. do they get "a soup with beans"? It is most likely that the German Supreme Court will decide that the "Basic Commercial" buyers get "a soup with beans".

W.O

My advice to the German courts would be to take on this case first...

"The ultimate driving machine"

Cheers, Si

full disclosure I'm an Audi driver.

Mr. Ohnesorg

Were you on the bus and had the "soup with beans" because your postings sure have a lot of gas.

TB

I knew I smelled something. ;^P