vulturesrow,

I fail to see the "goodness" of the article. It seems to be very one-sided. I am absolutely not biased in any way. I find the discussions somewhat trite but amusing. That article is just a re-hash of one side of the argument, the way I see/understand it!?


I mean if I made the rules of a game of poker and they contained an ambiguity, and I would be the judge or referee at the same time, I guarantee you that I will win and clean you out.
I am missing something here?