Gerhard Fiedler connectionbrazil.com> writes: > If the driving assignment says "drive course A with a car that has the > steering wheel on the right side" and I show up with a car that has it > on the left side, I'm not sure who's to blame when I can't complete the > assignment -- no matter how much or how little I understand of the > mechanics involved :) If someone says 'We are the legitimate community-supported tax-receiving tax-exemption-receiving school UUU. To obtain our famous driving certificate C, pay us $X and drive course A with a car of brand XYZ model year current or not older than a year, and you must buy the car because it is illegal to rent it or borrow ours', then, if the value the certificate C is less than a XYZ brand car, one can say (and likely sustain in court), that school UUU is actually a sales outlet for XYZ cars, and that, as a consequence, it should advertise its certificates as 'C certificates for XYZ model year YYYY only', to avoid confusing punters, and provide an explanation as to how exactly it ensures that the generous tax allowances it receives from the public are carefully and continuously managed such that they do not end up financing the company XYZ, and such that any 'pork' dropped UUU's way by XYZ, for example in the form of cheap bulk licenses and freebies for academic staff and as donations that happen to further certain academic needs, does not influence the freedom of thought and choice (in car brands to be 'taught' in) exercised by the presumably high and respected administrators of UUU, lest they lose their precious tax breaks and pay up retroactively in case there was some fraud or something (just suppose), or even stay in jail for a round or two (just suppose). You know, there is this saying in English: if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then I say, it is a duck. I think that it applies here. Peter -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist