Who is the crazy one?

[Apoc]

We weren't arguing anything other than NASA.

No, Chad brought up NASA.

...and that's what all subsequent discussion was based on... the NASA CCR. He, nor I, were arguing anything outside that. I'm not debating whether or not he was right in doing so, which is what Evan seems to focused on in reminding us of our club experience. Let me say that again in case it didn't sink in... I'm only defending his position on the NASA CCR. I don't need to fish for shit, I know what my intent is.

You're fishing for a point here. Yes the rule is not cut and dry and requires a 2+2=4 logical conclusion that is currently flying above your (and chad's) head.

It's not flying above anyone's head. I think it depends on your interpretation of rules in general. If you believe rules are explicit then what's not stated specifically isn't a rule and therefore not required or prohibited. I think that's the perspective that Chad's coming from and I subscribe to it. If you don't spell it out then I can do whateverthefuckiwant... that's why rule books are so long.

In conclusion: Everyone wins!

...and because this thread doesn't have enough cats.