Yeah. Actually, the court noted this as well: > the drivers’ textual points do not account for what seems to us to be Oakhurst’s strongest textual rejoinder:

Yeah. Actually, the court noted this as well: > the drivers’ textual points do not account for what seems to us to be Oakhurst’s strongest textual rejoinder: no conjunction precedes “packing.” Rather, the only conjunction in the exemption — “or” — appears before “distribution.” And so, on the drivers’ reading, the list is strangely stingy when it comes to conjunctions, as it fails to use one to mark off the last listed activity. To me, that seems really conclusive. I'm a little bit surprised that the court still thought the sentence was ambiguous.