"Brent P" wrote in message
news:25udnRh0QdhQRWzcRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> In article , James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>> Nothing to interpret. A radar detector is not "designed or intended" to
>> "scramble" radar signals. Neither is a missing tag. The wording is as
>> clear as it can be. It seems to me that the problem here is not
>> "interpretation", but "comprehension".
>
> INTENDED TO INTERFERE WITH, DISRUPT, OR SCRAMBLE
>
> One could argue the radar detector does interfere with police usage of
> the device. Take out the words PASSIVE and INTERFERE WITH and the worries
> go away.
>
>
One can argue anything...usually at $300 an hour tough.
|
|