[Bfair]

Carl, (now that we seem to be back on a first name basis) it seems to many that we are knocking around various interpretations, etc at various levels.

One issue I have in reading your posts and those of certain eUmpire editors is that is seems these editors waiver in their philosophy of "by the book" and "by the intent" of the rule. I see rules, official interpretation, and authoritative opinion quoted. It seems, at times, that people use what they wish merely to prove a point rather than that which may actually apply. I perceive inconsistency in method.

Is there an order of rank on which to accept such rules over official interpretation over authoritative opinion, etc. As an example, if I am satisfied with what is found in Official interpretation (such as NAPBL) need I go beyond to authoritative opinion?

I think this issue is wide open and needs discussion with all the rules, official interpretations (sometimes misquoted), and authoritative opinions flying around.

Will you address these questions? It may allow me (and perhaps others) to better understand your responses and others as these threads continue.

Steve
Member
EWS