As I said to you previously (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9592532 ): What value do you expect to get out of demanding that people analyze these random situations? Ultimately, it's the government bureaucrats and legal system that make the decisions, so even if someone gives you some relatively definitive answer, it could still turn out to be wrong.
The determination is made by applying a series of subjective standards, looking at situations that are somewhat comparable along one of those standards is not necessarily going to inform the outcome if the other standards are subjectively more important.
There is room to articulate some frustration with the seeming arbitrariness of the law, but do that instead of asking argumentative questions that are only vaguely interesting to the topic.
Of course. I am not addressing whether or not the law is appropriate. But if the law is there, it should be codified properly, so that you shouldn't need a lawyer to deal with something the law was never intended to address.
Sure, I don't actually think that my arguments would actually hold up in court, but that's kind of my point; the law is written very poorly, which means that the _actual_ legal effect is not nearly as clear to a lay person as the original comment I was responding to was arguing. I alluded to this in my second paragraph in my comment, but I guess I could have been more explicit.
reply