re: heard
in response to
by
posted on
Mar 12, 2014 11:46AM
well, we can go all the way back to the 2011 AGM where an executive of the Company indicated there were "relations"* with a company that had (i) a short name, and (ii) everybody would recognize.
Candidates for (i) could be
a) wherein the short name is a name:
b) wherein the short name is not a name:
The reader would use their own judgement as to which candidates from (a) and/or (b) might be excluded, based on the degree of "everybodyness" constraint found in (ii).
* -- in the non-Clinton/Lewinsky sense of the word. Or not. ;-)