Quote:
Originally posted by His High Holiness
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
What does Carl list as the source for this (FED) interpretation (my book's in the car; my car's in the shop)?
I thought I had read an official FED interp ruling the same as in BRD. But, I couldn't find it last night in my files of interps.
I'm fond of saying, "It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." That saying applies to me, too. Apparently, I've "known for sure" the incorrect ruling on this.
|
Bob;
Rich has interpreted the BRD correctly. Unfortunately, Carl does not list a source. I was hoping to find something about how he had talked to an interpreter, etc. I have posted an alert to Carl to join this thread pronto. Unfortunately, he is AWOL. My guess is that he is scrambling to find his notes and figure out why he wrote this in the BRD or he is sitting back with delight to see how many people make fools of themselves. Then he will lay his trump card on the table and lord it over the little dogs who think that they know the rules. That is the reason that I have never debated rules with Carl. He is almost always right and even if he is wrong, he knows all the cards in everyone's hand.
Peter
|
I don't argue rules with Carl, either, although I will question until explained to my understanding. Carl well mey indeed have a trump card somewhere, but in Washington, Tim Stevens' interp will carry the day. Where Tim's ruling may falter in the end, though, is that it applies a common sense interpretation to the letter of the law. In FED that is dangerous. My money is still on Tim, though. In the past his interps have moved national to change theirs.