provides two criteria one of the wage referees to eight hours in each of five consecutive twenty four hour periods that does not refer to a work week but the  nd one dies or i think it is the employees sleeps on the premise seize were all sleep periods between the beginning and end of this one hundred and twenty d document our new reading if you tell me if i'm right about this reading the sentence refining distilling the minimum conditions required to meet this rule this rule must be going to refine your it tell me what i know what i was saying what is it that i'm a fighting and restating suppose they had just the paragraph above isn't what follows that st paragraph under circumstances where employed does not maintain his or her permanent residence isn't what follows  is refining and restating what is meant by a one hundred and twenty hours if you read it to say no we're refighting restating the reference to extended period in the rule in the c a for but the district where i think you read it to say and if that's correct then how do you make sense of the end of that paragraph for it says this one hundred and twenty four hour period because as i understand it the raid does not have one hundred and you're arguing is that they were announcing to the world as if they were abandoning a prior construction of the rule which would be dependent on the work week and embracing a new understanding of which it would not be and that's just a i don't know i don't know you know but when is it it wouldn't make sense but wouldn't that one really fun to think that that's not what they were doing that they're just actually explaining one hundred and twenty hours with the work week because then we don't have to attribute isn't this isn't a question of whether there's a reasonable agreement this is if it is ambiguous and it may not be because it may point more to one interpretation  but i don't see any precedent that says that's the way i'm supposed to resolve it so right too and i think you in certain areas of the law for example under arnold fisher one of the exception clauses narrowly defined under the f l a say can i have a supreme court case that tells me narrow construction and so haha i grab hold of that i don't see any argument that you're asking us to apply arnold applying work week in the sense of payroll period because it's not going to lead to the say we're contemplating situations in which you could get the odd situations that your opponent is saying tells us is one hundred and twenty hours in a week five nights consecutive in a week is team in a work week is deemed to be an extended period of time if it's the sort of extensive be covered or would not be deemed extended as five nights if they straddle the two different work weeks and so what's what your response to what seems to be somewhat  precisely because you get the anomaly that they're identified by treating this type of circumstance as subjects of the work we call you'd say that shows you're in the role you should be in a duty station will for a circumstance like if i follow your argument the anomaly that they point out from applying the work we test to this to be staged to this circumstance you're basically saying yes you did it doesn't make any sense to do that but precisely because it doesn't make any sense that's an indication you shouldn't treat this circumstance is subject to this rule it's really an example that should fit in the duty station rule because it's not reside because a true case of residing and you won't have those in our  five times a week that's the idea of regularity which be consistent with living in residing and then when we try to figure out the period during that continuous residing it would make sense to talk about the period in a work week because  regulars now i understand that as is your point suggested what do you do when it's twenty six weeks every other week because applying the work we test does then give the anomaly rise to knowing that you're talking about but