... to your first post if your intentions ...
>> change(d) between posts based upon the response(s) made.
... ???

In any event, I was responding to what you said, not what you "intended".

And, what makes you think I would be ...
>> ... arguing just for the sake of arguement.
... ???

Lawyers don't do that sort of thing!! And I certainly wouldn't (except maybe in the long running discussion we had on the board over the start of the new Millennium!).

>> I also find it interesting that you (as an attorney) struggle with
>> the duality of the situation regarding Gamings regulation that chips
>> and tokens are the property of the casino(s) and that those same casino(s)
>> need Gaming approval of chip designs and chip design suggests the
>> removal of the chip from the casino.

I'm not even sure what the heck that means, much less whether I'm struggling with the "duality" of it!! But, if it means what I think it means, I'm not struggling at all. I've said before that I believe any "regulation" purporting to allow casinos to "retain" ownership of chips which they sell to the public is simply unenforceable, if not illegal. Especially with respect to LE's marketed for the sole purpose of having people carry them away. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell, under normal circumstances, that any court would ever order a collector to return to a casino such a chip obtained by purchasing it.

----- jim o\-S