Quote:
Originally Posted by mastek
wtf??
u r a konfusing chap
u approach with a snarky 'captain obvious' post .... then argue against my points but in the end agree ??? .... i guess hippocratic insolence still has a place?
btw, the initial 'question' was retorical and meant as a sign of dismay .... but u googled & learned something .... so this worthless thread stands corrected.  |
You are incapable of using proper grammar and spelling, and you say I'm confusing? I'm not a doctor, nor is this a medical discussion, so I have no idea what hippocratic anything has to do with it.
My point is, legally right does not always equate to morally right - legally, they have every right to use the Lotus name, they bought it. Morally, it's a bit more murky because there is no real direct link to the original Lotus F1 team. Your so-called rhetorical question brought up the legal aspect, so I responded that way.
You then cite legal cases that are completely different to the question of the Lotus name, and really cannot be used as precedent.
So in the end, yes, I agree with your opinion that they shouldn't use Lotus, and disagree that it is a legal issue - and your supporting arguments are total crap.