Careful with pronouns! Better to say "A judge rules that *a rapist* no longer needs to register as a sex offender."
Otherwise the "he" refers to the judge himself.
@3, the antecedent of "he" is obviously "Rapist"; only a fool would think the judge is ruling on his own sex offender status. Compare: "Chef in Paris given a job: A restaurateur discovered he makes delicious crepes"--would you really interpret this to mean that the restaurateur gave himself a job? Clearly you are the one who needs to drink some coffee.
WRT the football game: Is it legal to place this kind of wager in both Washington and Georgia? Maybe the governors can pardon themselves for the offense.
@10: Context is key, yes, but we can't let it outweigh the mechanics.
Consider:
Psychic in Tacoma reveals all: A woman claims she can foresee the future.
It's ambivalent whether we're talking about two people or one, so that's why a rewrite should be considered especially if the text is ever translated into another language. But I'll agree that it is not an "error" if the context is clear.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/ass…
Otherwise the "he" refers to the judge himself.
So, you are saying that emotional age is a factor in determining statutory?
Well, since in some ways I have the mind of a 13 year old, therefore, some of the (very) few women who had sex with me are actually rapists.
Let justice be served!
13 is still older than the mind of the majority of Slog commenters.
That's okay. I suggest more coffee or perhaps a Bloody Mary.
WRT the football game: Is it legal to place this kind of wager in both Washington and Georgia? Maybe the governors can pardon themselves for the offense.
Consider:
It's ambivalent whether we're talking about two people or one, so that's why a rewrite should be considered especially if the text is ever translated into another language. But I'll agree that it is not an "error" if the context is clear.