You ignore the language of the statute in your discussion. I have no idea what you are basing your statements on. I have asked several times. Each time you come on like an attack dog. I am not sure you have any basis for your point of view. If so, what is it? Then, we can have a discussion. Your argument in this part of thread seems to be, (1) the statute doesn't cover chips, (2) therefore, the statute doesn't cover chips. Weak. I presented and discussed the language of the statute. I said I don't know what it means, and no court has ever discussed what the language means. I guess you know more than me and the courts on this one. Good for you. Just one question, what exactly is your position?
Michael Siskin
|