Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe
The first post in this thread contains the Redding play and interpretation that supports this.
As far as the actual wording of the rule is concerned, I don't know how "touching" can be any simpler and imply anything than the present tense of the verb.
With all due respect, it appears you are trying to make the rules fit your interpretation.
In regard to the "intent" that you mention in your previous post, you're not alluding to the spirit of the rule are you?  |
I didn't realize the initial description was an exact quote. If it is, I don't understand how that conclusion could be correct.
The only thing I'm trying to match my interpretation to is basic common sense and my understanding of the object of this rule.
As for the selection of the present tense of a verb, I have no problem with it's usage, but I don't believe it includes, or implies, any requirement that the touching must be continuous to maintain the status, which the touching OOB creates, simply because that doesn't make any sense and seems unnecessary.
As for the "spirit of the rule", that's something you'd have to ask the rule makers to explain, to be sure of. I don't have access to them, so I'll have to stick with my own assessment of common sense and logic, although I can't seem to grasp any rational purpose or reason to include such a meaningless requirement.
Perhaps you see some purpose, objective, logic or reason, that makes some semblence of sense, that I don't and would be kind enough to share it with me.