Originally Posted by joejack951
Can you be more specific? Break the law down like this:
Requirement A = ???
Requirement B = ???
Complying with the law = ???
We went through that the other day. I'm not going through it again.
1) I've already stated that if it's laid out as a simple equation, HH's interpretation makes sense.
2) Brian has already stated that there are two types of "or."
3) I've already stated that yes, Brian is right, and the courts use the "exclusive or" that I'm using, and not the "inclusive or" that HH is using.
4) HH disputes that, knowing full well that I'm not just making this stuff up.
5) I've already challenged him to ask Caloso, or that other BF lawyer in Florida, whose name escapes me at the moment, if he won't just accept my word on it.
6) I'm not going through it again. The ink is all but dry on my law degree, and then I take the bar. If you and HH think you know more about statutory construction than I do, continue to believe so. This debate with HH has become an extremely juvenile exercise in refusing to acknowledge one's own lack of expertise. It's the equivalent of me offering an explanation of computer programming that is absolutely backwards from how programming is done, and insisting I'm right, and refusing to admit that I don't know as much about programming as HH does. I know you're new to the argument, so I won't apply that to you. But I'm not going to go through it all over again with somebody else who doesn't know the law but thinks he does.