Brain teaser

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

If that is not the case, then where is the SPECIFIC Rule that defines inbounds? You cannot define inbounds by the OOB definition without assuming something.

Not trying to be a smart___ here, but why do you need to define in bounds? All that we need to know is the definition of OOB - as it affects several things. If you're not OOB, not of those items are in play.

Now, having said that, I surrender! You are correct in your interpretation, not because of your faulty logic, but because of a specific case reference in the book.

I'm happy you understand the rule now. I find it odd that I'm not right because of my logic, but because of a case reference... what logic was used to get to the case reference?

Peace.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Not trying to be a smart___ here, but why do you need to define in bounds? All that we need to know is the definition of OOB - as it affects several things. If you're not OOB, not of those items are in play.

I guess it's just a symptom of my OCD.

I'm happy you understand the rule now. I find it odd that I'm not right because of my logic, but because of a case reference... what logic was used to get to the case reference?

Now THAT'S a great question. I wish I knew. But, knowing some history behind FED opinions, the powers that be didn't necessarily use logic.