Originally Posted by Blue Order
FFS, you're as hard-headed as your hero, and just as incapable of reading as he is
I am not "clinging to my position based on Brian's 'plain language' argument."
I said, once more, that I was just about to post that you had me convinced, when I read Brian's post re: inclusive and exclusive Or. Brian's post was absolutely correct on the law; the courts do their best to avoid interpretations which would lead to nonsensical results, which is exactly what you and Al are putting forth-- an interpretation that leads to nonsensical results. Pull your head out sometime and read something other than your own BS. Read some court cases that discuss the meaning of the word "or." I have done that, you have OBVIOUSLY not done that. End of. They all state clearly that "or" is a disjunctive word, which is the same thing Brian said last night in regards to "exclusive or." When he posted that, I realized why what you argue makes sense from a logical perspective, but is still wrong as a legal argument.
If you still don't believe that you're wrong, I'll post a quote from a treatise on statutory interpretation, which discusses the use of the "disjunctive or."
Now your argument is based on the premise that the result of my logical interpretation of the law is nonsensical.
Why is it a nonsensical result?
If they want to prohibit cyclists from riding in the lane unless they are moving at or faster than the speed limit AND are not moving slower than the speed of traffic, the way I'm interpreting the law, logically, it says exactly that. What's nonsensical about it?
Nobody reads your wall of words but you, HH.
No wonder you don't get what I'm saying.