That case and that book

[Carol]

Carol:
> <SNIP>
> > If I had been Rapaport, I would have asked Shalman, "Do you mean,
'Does the Lexicon contain quotations and paraphrases from Ms.
Rowling's works?'" A little clarification never hurts, and it's
important to understand the question that you're answering.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> And if I had been your lawyer, I would have advised you to NOT get
into argument with the lawyer who cross-examines you. I do not 
understand the question is the only answer you should give if you do 
not understand the question on the stand in my opinion. Then either
judge will ask the lawyer to rephrase or your lawyer will object to> form.
> 
Caarol:
Not an argument, just a polite request for clarification. If I'm
answering yes or no to a question, I want to understand the question
I'm answering (as, it seems, Steve V. did not.) Rapaport tried the "I
don't understand the question" tactic, and all he got was a repetition
of the "copying" question. I think he had every right to know what
Shalman meant by "copying" before appearing to incriminate himself.
(Wrong word, I know. It's a civil case. But I'd have wanted to make
sure that he didn't mean copying and pasting the whole document or
plagiarism or anything of the sort.

Carol, who hopes that you as my lawyer would have helped me to ask
that question or asked it for me because the definition of "copying"
is central to the case
> 
> 
> > Carol, who thinks that this little exchange does nothing more than
> > state the obvious
> >
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> The obvious being that Lexicon copied JKR's work in my opinion. This 
> example I quoted in responce to Lee's argument that defense denied 
> copying.
> 
> This part I interpret as exactly the opposite. Which is of course 
> open to interpretation.
>