... Stu, or are you really that dense?

jtr: >>>> Even if you had a side business as a chip dealer, selling computer services to
>>>> another chip dealer who markets slabs would not be "participating in the slabbing of chips"
sg: >> That's NOT what it says. You wrote the damn thing. It says:
jtr: >>>> I will NOT do business of any kind with any DEALER
sg: >> It says "business of ANY KIND". It doesn't say chip related now does it.

No, it doesn't -- and it means what it says: I personally will not do business of any kind with a dealer who sells slabs. It doesn't say -- and doesn't mean, by any reasonable interpretation of what it does say -- that I won't buy electricity from the power company that supplies the dealer with juice, or the local hamburger joint where he buys lunch, or the TV cable company to which he subscribes.

sg: >> It goes on to say:
jtr: >>>> ... who participates in any way in the slabbing of chips.
sg: >> It says IN ANY WAY. There's no qualification on that. What the hell does "in any way" mean?

Not that hard, Stu. Participate in slabbing -- buy them, sell them, authenticate them, grade them, market them. Obviously does not mean (to anyone with half a brain) that if you are third party supplier of some product to a "dealer" who sells slabs that you are "participating in any way" in the slabbing of chips.

jtr: >>>> by any reasonable interpretation of the English language.
sg: >> I'm sorry ...

I agree with that -- you're sorry.

sg: >> ... I have to read what is actually there.

If you actually did that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

jtr: >>>> If you sold computer services for a living, rather than chips, you wouldn't be a "dealer"
sg: >> No kidding but I couldn't do business with that "dealer" according to the pledge.

Now that you have right. I am a lawyer. Having made that pledge, I would not accept as a client a dealer who sells slabs. That's my choice. If you are willing to provide your professional services to a dealer who sells slabs and are unwilling to sign the pledge for that reason, so be it.

sg: >> The reality is that I only seem to have a problem with the "old gang".

I've already pointed out that this isn't the case.

sg: >> I wonder why that is?

And I've already pointed out why this is the case.

BTW, are you going to direct me to a BB post or email where I "openly threatened" you with "the apparently top secret 'do not trade list'"?

Nevermind that if I "openly threatened" you with it, it couldn't be much of a "secret". "Openly secret" -- sounds like an oxymoron to me.

----- jim o\-S