Very well said in all respects. I don't think you have been disrepectful. I was just getting a little frustrated trying to understand why you held this particular position. I don't think you and I have really disagreed on too much in this thread, although we have taken opposite sides. I have agreed with you in principle, except that I see some wiggle room, where you do not. Here, I have had only the statute itself to go by, none of the history, and the only case I could find. The language of the statute does not seem air-tight to me, and thus, I say no one knows for sure how the courts will interpret it. Do I expect the courts to include chips? No. But it is possible.

I have enjoyed the discussion. You have made it enjoyable. Don't fret.

Michael Siskin