> I appreciate the firmness of your conviction
I don’t understand how you could misread “firmness of conviction” in my comment. I made it as short, bland, and neutral as possible, on purpose. It’s just a statement of fact with a source.
I don’t understand how you could misread “firmness of conviction” in my comment. I made it as short, bland, and neutral as possible, on purpose. It’s just a statement of fact with a source.
So I didn’t misinterpret what you said, it’s just that I have seen consent and disclosure always hand in hand.
It’s been years since I read the law in full myself, so it’s possible you’re right. I’m going by my own recollection (which can obviously be flawed) and the result of a lawyer’s interpretation (which is the thing you recommended) but I’m not one myself.
I still don’t understand (nor have you addressed) how you misread “firmness of conviction” in my words, especially when I purposefully did the opposite because I understand that these legal matters can get fuzzy.
We have also retained lawyers in UK for the same matter and they could not come to an ultimate conclusion what constitutes tracking and what does not.
The whole matter is that brain damaged.