[Harlan1196]

We were not arguing the substance of the clause. We were arguing whether it was proper for the Ankeny judge to refer to it as Clause 4 vice 5.

Cut the revisionist nonsense.

[philman_36]

We were arguing whether it was proper for the Ankeny judge to refer to it as Clause 4 vice 5.
And it appears we still are. Even your footnote says it isn't resolved.

So anyway, why did you leave off that part of the footnote?