Again, you seem to think the rest of us are plebs because it IS for you to say what this means. Or am I misinterpreting that too? I would go to the barricades on this one as I did recently with Netstrata and, to great and vociferous length with their boss and now departed president of SCA Stephen Brell. Upshot, my strata scheme got the strata roll with the email addresses of the owners attached. Even plebs can prevail, just by following what the law says and not by what it might mean if you turn the words around a bit and take out a couple here and there.
Yes you are misinterpreting.
It is not that people don’t misinterpret it is more a question of how often do they do it.
You might note i say “what does it mean is not for plebs to say unless we are quoting the Courts”
What part of “we” am i not a part of?
I would have used “they” if i was seeking to exclude myself.
You seem to exclude me from the “we”. Your action, not mine.
I do not say what it means, I offered a competing, and better, interpretation that is consistent with the information at hand.
Upshot is the issue wasn’t about whether or not you can have the “strata roll” with emails from Netstrata..
The issue was is an owner legally required to give an email if they have one.
I have shown you why that if one meets 178 1(b) then (c) does not apply.
I have shown you the State’s own website does not say you have to give it if you have it, which i believe it would if there was the requirement you press.
You have not successfully presented an argument to support the idea one has to give an email.
Yes you misinterpret and yes you did substitute.