Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
I can tell you from considerable experience that when these kinds of issues are discussed in actual discussion meetings, it usually drives a lot of people crazy.
|
That's the difference and beauty of the internet - these type of discussions do not have to waste your time if they don't interest you - much unlike an umpire
meeting where you have to sit and endure something of no value or interest to you. At a meeting, the audience is held hostage. That is not the case here.
You can't be guilty of wasting people's time here. Because they don't
have to be here. They can pick which threads to read and
not to read. They can create their
own topics. Complaining about wasting people's time in an internet forum is just plain idiotic!
Besides, I disagree with your characterization that this discussion is some esoteric, never-can-happen, not important topic - as evidenced by the conflicting views/interpretations on something that is not all that unusual, in my opinion. Nobody is picking nits here. It's a discussion of "intent" and interpretation of "intent" on a rule that REQUIRES a determination of "intent".
BTW, I don't need nor care for people to come to my defense. The fact that you even have to
mention that speaks volumes of the tone of this forum.