Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
Yup, you're a lawyer.
|
Everyone's gotta have a little larceny in their hearts if they are going to survive the game. ;-)
Quote:
|
[/i]I gave up on you because: You continued to argue with the clear wording of the rule; So, I provided the case play; You continued to argue with the case play by way of derision.
|
[/i]
Perhaps, but the post that began with, "That's a lot of hooey." set the stage and the play unfolded from there.
Quote:
In your most recent responses you continue to want to argue against the clear wording of the rule.
I, for one, have been a frequent critic of the sentence structure, language, syntax, and editing of the ASA rule book. So I am no blind defender of the writ handed down from OK City. But there is precious little wrong with their wording here. Sure, they need to remove the "about to receive" clause in the sub rule that they already took out of the main rule. But that's it. The rest is very clear.
Now, can you learn or are you you still just getting annoyed?
|
I am not annoyed. In fact, I appreciated you taking me on. I am also quite open to other's opinions. If you go back and re-read my original posts, you will see that I made a statement and then asked a question. I learn when my (and others) questions are answered. Which is one of the main reasons I come to this board.
You gotta admit, the pig was more offensive than Durwood.