|
Once again, JRutledge, you are way out beyond the reach of your headlights. There is no such thing as the "Bush doctrine" other than the opinions and interpretations made by many public officials, journalists and pundits choosing to aggregate separate, individual and not always connected observations made by a mixture of people, under an arbitrary title created by a slanted media.
If you can refer me to an official document (similar to a written rule) that incorporates the "Bush Doctrine", I will be in your debt. As Gov. Palin learned, responding to a mythical target, that is defined by whomever chooses to define it, without understanding exactly what their unique version of defininition is, can be problematic.
Your assessment, of what I presume you meant to define the "Spirit of the Rules", is simply inadequate. No doubt the Official's Handbook, Case Book and other official publications are designed to further explain the logic behind rules and assist an official in understanding and correctly applying their judgment and ruling. Any rule/exception is always designed to address a particular situation(s), but as we have seem continually over the years, rarely is any rule able to cover all possibilities, present and future.
Continually basing your position on repeating the question "why" is a strategy best reserved for toddlers, who usually reach, and end, at a point of just being annoying. I certainly can't guarantee, but am reasonably confident, the issue of the A-11 Offense as related to the numbering exception, was not in the least bit a consideration during the actual creation of the exception. You can beat your breast, and line up all the like thinkers you can, but the idea of the A-11 offense exploiting the numbering exception will most likely remain an unintended consequence.
In and of itself, that is not a big problem, because all the rule makers have to do is contemplate the loophole that's now been discovered and decide whether it should be allowed to continue, or take steps to revise the language and close it. Really no big deal, but until they do something, it remains a loophole.
As for your comments, why should I be insulted? Some of your input has been informative and relevant, some has been just silly and stubborn, some has been needlessly and excessively negative but that reflects badly on you rather than the targets and some has flown way over my head.
Ed Hickland: I realize there is a history documented when establishing a rule to document what the intention was, at the time of creation and understand that is a valuable tool in understanding how to comply with that particular rule. I certainly could be wrong, but I suspect that the concept of a possible A-11 Offense application NEVER occurred to that decision process and is simply something that subsequently fell outside the discussion. What we now are confronted with as an unintended consequence.
I'm not intending to lambaste anyone, other than those who have needlessly lowered the tone of this discussion with personal attacks and regretable presumptions. Neither am I overly impressed with any opinion when it's viability is based solely on numbers, rather than context.
Like some others, you seem to presume that since I don't share all your extreme conclusions, I must therefore support this approach. For the umpteenth time, I do not. Actually I agree with many of the arguments suggested against this concept, and have repeatedly stated I do not think this formation is viable, under it's own weight.
Many of the tangents that have been advanced, seem just like unnecessary baggage and paths that lead nowhere. The issue is in the hands of the rule makers, where it has actually always resided, and they will guide our response, sooner or later, in one direction or the other. Likely whichever decision they make, will produce some level of opposition, and as is usually the case, that won't make much difference other than provide noise.
|