Rules Myths Part 1

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by CO ump

I was being kind to suggest you only show your vast knowledge of original intent relative to the codification of 1845.
If you want to produce research that shows intent of rules from the 18th century then have at it.
My suggestion would be to stick to what you can prove, which thru 8 pages has been nothing

You agree that the current interpretation is different from what you claim is the original intent of the rules. Thus, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that the interpretation has changed over the years, not on everyone else to prove that it did NOT change.

Please note that it is not sufficient to claim that the interpretation MIGHT have been different, which is entirely consistent with the fact that it HAS NOT.