Hilarious why some are upset over the high cost of alimited-production lens

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The fact that some people don't have a
situation where the loophole benefit isn't useful to them doesn't mean
it isn't available.

of course it does. if their situation does not allow them to use the
loophole then it's not available to them.

Of course the loophole is available.

but of no benefit to those who don't qualify to use it.

If you meant that not everyone
in the masses has occasion or need to use the loophole, then you
should have written that. "Available" means "it's there to use".

i did write that.

don't blame me because you're a retard who can't understand simple
english.

I've pointed out that these loopholes exist because people use
ambiguous language in drafting the bills, and this leads to loopholes.

and i've pointed out that it's normally intentional because they're
paid off for it to be ambiguous so that those paying them off can
exploit the ambiguity.

You've stated that these people should be fired.

you said the sloppiness is *not* intentional.

if that is true, then yes they should be fired because they're doing a
sloppy job. people normally get fired when they do sloppy jobs.

the reality is that they're bought and the sloppiness is intentional.

the rest of you babble snipped.