|
I think the thrust of his point is that it's a term of art whose definition is pure speculation until a court rules on it. What the law says is perfectly inclusive of his opinion of what it means and your opinion of what it means and, I think, a good argument could be made to a court for either to prevail. Your definition is much more specific and exclusive, which is why he (and I) take issue with it but I don't think there was any snarky pot-kettle stuff gonig on.
|