> No, my entire thing has always been based on possession being the crime.
Then why did you say "if the law only forbid counterfeiting 100 stamps"??
I'm done too, because my entire argument was based on what you actually said, not what you secretly meant and never clarified.
Also the "unless you made them in front of them" excuse about proof could be applied to making even 1. You're grasping at straws to make conviction sound more difficult than it is.
This may shock you, but I spent about twenty seconds on my original comment. I certainly didn't have an editor go over it to ensure my actual point of view was getting across. Hell, you can see the edit I made showing when I realized we may be talking past eachother with possess/create.
>Even after that, you were still insisting there were loopholes.
After clarifying my position, I figured you'd either reply with "yes, we were on different wavelengths" or you'd accept we were talking about possession. So when you continued, I assumed you were talking about possession too. My mistake.
Then why did you say "if the law only forbid counterfeiting 100 stamps"??
I'm done too, because my entire argument was based on what you actually said, not what you secretly meant and never clarified.
Also the "unless you made them in front of them" excuse about proof could be applied to making even 1. You're grasping at straws to make conviction sound more difficult than it is.