Emanuel,

Don't get carried away. I thought you are a law professor. I expect more from you. Be rational. But you always seem to miss the point I was making.

The felony you mentioned can only be sustained ( regardless of where you are from ) if you can prove mens rea and actus reus beyond reasonable doubt .This requires you to first prove that "Oxon" is exclusive to the University of Oxford and no others.
I do not see how I can be charged with lack of ethics or of making a sick joke when you are unable to point out to me the law ( or whatever ) that "Oxon" is only exclusive to Oxford and no one else. Is "Oxon" trademark registered? I think not. You show it to me. So no trademark infringement also. So what felony are you talking about? So what is so shameful about it. Show me? Prove me wrong? Is this how you would conduct a prosecution for a felony in Brazil? Your Article 170 per se does not hold water. You have to prove the elements/ingredients of the felony, do you not? Show me the proof.
McDonald recently lost a court case in failing to restrain McCurry from using the prefix "Mc" because it was held , inter alia, that the prefix "Mc" was not exclusive to McDonald.
McCurry is an indian restaurant selling curries...etc. No confusion of McCurry with McDonald. See the difference my friend or do I have to spell it out to you.

There is nothing wrong with Oxford charging application fees. How would this damage Oxford's reputation as you claim is beyond my comprehension.

Hi, Emanuel

I was not joking. Show me the law that ("Oxon") is exclusive to University of Oxford! Is "Oxon" a registered trademark? Oxford Brookes is in Oxford. The word "Oxford" is part of the name of the University ie Oxford Brookes University. So what is wrong for an Oxford Brookes graduate to be styled BA(Hons)(Oxon)?. Ethically, it may not be correct. But legally, is it really a felony? I leave it to you to ponder.

Oxford degree holders appear to use 'Oxf' now.
Eg.
http://www.spc.ox.ac.uk/text/153/emeritus_honorary_fellows.html

Abuse (or should I say 'flexible use') of post-nominals sometimes happens between a red brick and an ex-poly of the same city (a graduate of the latter using the standard post-nominal of the former).

While teaching Law, we never induce students to act against ethics. What I deem wrong is that you suggested that I could attend that other Oxford and let people think I went to the Oxford this thread is about. After all, it is pretty obvious that the Oxford trademark that is so valued here, and worldwide, is not that one from the University this fellow you know attended, but that from the Oxford I want to.

And, as I aforementioned, it would only be criminally relevant IF you were willing to let people think you studied at OXFORD (THE Oxford, say), while you went to 'another' Oxford. If you misled people unintentionally, there is no fellony whatsoever. Therefore, I agree with Lawmann's idea regarding mens in rea. It goes along with I said before.

Let me translate Art. 171 (I know I wrote 170, but it is 171, sorry), so you can take your own conclusions.

"Art. 171. Obtain, to himself or to a third party, ilicit advantage, in prejudice of another, by inducing or keeping someone into error, may it be through subterfuge, trickery or any other fraudulent manner." (You can check it in Portuguese on http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil/Decreto-Lei/Del2848compilado.htm , if you want to)

One of the thing I usually like while debating with Lawmann is his usage of the 39 manners to win a debate without being right, from Schoppenhauer's homonymous book. Do not know if he read it, but he uses the same logics pointed there. For instance, Lawmann, you try to disqualify my argumentation and my sickness about your suggestion by saying you expected more from me because I am professor. It is a manner to attack the debatator in order to prejudice his argumentation.

Regarding the McDonalds case, it is pretty obvious it is a different one. And it is obvious to anyone. Nobody can, nor shall be allowed, to prevent any stablishment at Oxford city to use the name or brand Oxford. It is simply ridiculous and nothing in my argumentation even suggested something like that. What I said was only that by trying to lure people to think I graduated from the world-class University of Oxford, while I graduated from a good University called Oxford, but not THAT Oxford, in order to charge more, or to get some kind of clients, I am clearly inducing them into error in order to obtain money I would not otherwise. So, Art. 171 applies. And there is clearly mens rea.

niknihc words only help me to 'hold water' here. I think that in Common Law countries, customs have a great weight in a legal debate. So, if there is a usage consecrated by tradition, and used by everybody, it has legal strenght.

Distorting words is a good manner to debate, but it as better one VERBALLY. Writing, this strategy can be dismantled, althought not always with ease.

niknihc, please, I never intended to say that this other Oxford is a bad University. I only spoke in that manner to diferentiate both 'Oxfords', so my argument would not be completely twisted (again) by Lawmann.

Pluto, sorry, but I am not accquainted with the meaning of 'red brick', save for its literal one. Mind to tell me? Thank you in advance!

Emanuel,

There you go again. You like to misquote me out of context. I never suggested to you to commit a felony based on your Art.171 or 170 or whatever.

I just saw the beginning of the thread, mentioning a decision on 14 January:

As the admissions decision date is rapidly approaching (14 Jan 2011) for those who applied on or before 19 Nov 2010, I think it's high time to start a new thread.

Is this correct? I have not heard or read anything on the website that indicates a decision will be made in January....

Phew! I thought they already sent out decisions to a first batch. Good luck to everyone! If you hear back, good or bad, be sure to let us know.

If Kate was right, we should start hearing from tomorrow...So anxious!!

If Kate was right, we should start hearing from tomorrow...So anxious!!

Silence still....

any updates?

Nope. I keep checking my e-mails!! Nothing yet.

Nope. I keep checking my e-mails!! Nothing yet.

Hi guys, I am also waiting to hear from Oxford. I have not felt the way I feel right now in a long time. How is everyone else doing?

last year the completion email said that the results would be declared on 19 march 2010. However results were declared by 15-17 march. This year 18 march 2010 is the deadline. so my guess is we should be hearing from them anytime within a day or so. emails are sent in batches, so some may hear a few hours earlier than the rest.

Hey Shabi,

Thanks for the reply, how are you handling these last few days? I couldn't do anything productive the whole day. My mind is stuck on the impending D DAY.

log-in; refresh; bite-nails; llm-guide; refresh e-mail; bite nails; llm-guide; refresh e-mails....

log-in; refresh; bite-nails; llm-guide; refresh e-mail; bite nails; llm-guide; refresh e-mails....

log-in; refresh; bite-nails; llm-guide; refresh e-mail; bite nails; llm-guide; refresh e-mails....

last year the completion email said that the results would be declared on 19 march 2010. However results were declared by 15-17 march. This year 18 march 2010 is the deadline. so my guess is we should be hearing from them anytime within a day or so.

Niknihc, I know the dates above are meant to say 18 March 2011 but why do you say it's speculation?