by jonahmaul
ras2124 wrote:
So if we summarize this thread:
You correctly understand the rules, but due to your interpretation of a wording, you don't like the rule in question as it doesn't logically make sense.
Numerous people say they disagree with your interpretation, trying to offer you their point of view (in which the rule makes sense) to help you.
You continuously tell us (somewhat aggressively) that our interpretation is arbitrary and our logic is flawed.
You correctly understand the rules, but due to your interpretation of a wording, you don't like the rule in question as it doesn't logically make sense.
Numerous people say they disagree with your interpretation, trying to offer you their point of view (in which the rule makes sense) to help you.
You continuously tell us (somewhat aggressively) that our interpretation is arbitrary and our logic is flawed.
Yep, agree 100%. As I said above the OP doesn't actually care about anybody else's reasons for why this rule can't be used. I expect that Scott's very clear quoting of the rules won't satisfy him or her either because that will be a translation issue.
There really is no point in this thread because the OP doesn't care what the answer is. They already have what they think is the answer and apparently nothing is going to change this interpretation.