3 ms·
You conveniently omitted the Exclusion class that makes the excerpt posted above quite reasonable. The only thing which is not completely clear to me is whether
by FpUser 5y ago
You conveniently omitted the Exclusion class that makes the excerpt posted above quite reasonable. The only thing which is not completely clear to me is whether the items listed in the Exclusion class are combined using OR or AND.
In any way every once in a while the US surprises me in a very good way. Congrats if it passes.
- refulgentis 5y agoI can't find what you're referring to in the source document. I believe you it's there, but I'm not sure your accusation + lack of content were a net contribution to the discussion
- FpUser 5y ago>"I believe you it's there.." Yes it is there in the same section as the topic mentioned. It has too much of the text IMHO to include in its entirety. Just in case you try again here is the pattern to search for: "(A) compete with the covered platform". >"but I'm not sure your accusation" The poster "accuses" proposal based on a single item taken out of context from the relevant section. Meanwhile the same section includes said Exclusion clause. >"net contribution to the discussion" The net contribution is that the distortion by omission of the bill's section is being prevented.