Originally Posted by rich
It's the use of the word OR that is the issue. It can be read that you can use the bag to kneel on OR to support the shin, either is OK. And that precludes any other use of the bag, either of those being acceptable.
There is a term in logic called EXCLUSIVE OR, which is what this phrase is being interpreted as, meaning one or the other but not both.
Example; I have a joint bank account with the wife, and the mandate says either party to sign cheques. Me, OR the wife. Now if we both happened to sign the same cheque, that would not make it invalid. If it had to be one signature only and the other appearing would negate the instruction, that would be an exclusive or.
I know which one I think makes sense.
edit: looks like Adam beat me to it
The whole problem is how people read rule's and interpret them,but there are among use just plain p!ss taker's.
People flaunt the rule's and no one say's anything they just moan behind people's back's.
I know of one statment when someone joked with a shooter about their kneeler's,the reply was well no one has pulled me up on it so i'm doing it till someone does.
If we all enforced the rule's then we would not all be penalised for the few.
I really enjoy this pass time but have to admit all the back biting has got me thinking.
We travel Hundred's of mile's meet lot's of great people compete for bit's of glass worth Fec all but personal achievement and some feel the need to bend the rule's to suit themselves.
Why is beyond me but it happen's,and as so very often in life the inoccent get punished.
I attended the Bfta meeting for a short while to introduce myself has the labour force for the Euro's 2014,i would not want any part of the commitee.
Stuck in a function room banging head's to get you lot a set of rule's to shoot by,if nothing else you should shoot to the rule's to show respect for their effort's.