
Allegedly, photographic evidence of Deanna's run exists too. Knowing me as she does, I opened my email at lunchtime to this, verbatim and unmistakable in tone: I do not give you permission to put my photo on your blog. Not much room for interpretation there.
And while no photographic evidence (that I have) exists, Greg had an eventful time in Hangzhou. From cobbled-together post-race email reports of dehydrated teenagers, muddy mountain trails, wrong turns taken, diesel fumes, and idyllic temples, it sounds like the ready-for-boar, tonic-drinkin', Snickers-eatin' runnin' fool had a fine day.
2 comments:
As the lawyer in the family, it appears there is some ambiguity in Deanna's request. Which marathon? Which photo? Which I is she referring to?
I think you would be Ok to post. The case of Bungleshesiser v. Dummkopf, 1998 SKCA 223, clearly indicates that a spouse's declarations, post run (including up to one week after) can not be given weight and are not admissible as evidence. I am not sure if this counts in Korea, but you should be OK.
I like the way you think, Young Esquire. Always find the loophole.
And I'm pretty sure the Bungleshesiser precedent supersedes any Korean legal-wranglings. Plus, the Korean stuff tends to be written in Korean, which, as we all know, is much less legally binding than the non-Korean, especially as it heretofore forthwith applies ad aeterno to all correspndence henceforth and retroactively published in the blogosphere.
Post a Comment