From: James Willson (jkvw3_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 03:34:21 PST
--- Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> wrote: > James Willson <jkvw3_at_yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > If you're going to claim that something is in the FRC Regulations, then > > > you really ought to specify /where/ in the FRC Regulations it is. (The > > > definition given above is quoted verbatim from the URL > > > http://skepdic.com/begging.html - main body of text - first paragraph.) > > > 202:1 says rules "should" suggest and instantiate. > > 202:3 says you "ought to" specify. > > Are these requirements, or mere suggestions which can be ignored > > without pain of invalidity? > > Is there any difference between "should" and "ought to"?I think I'll read > them > > as requirements. If this isn't how > > things "ought" to be handled here in FRC land, we'll probably > > have to fix it with a proposal, since I think I'm pushing the > > three day judging limit here. Anyway, by this reading, > > 202:3 is invalid since claims were made about things being > > in the FRC regulations in 201:1. > > You're saying that 202:3 imposes a requirement that 202:1 does not > follow, hence 202:3 is inconsistent with 202:1, hence 202:3 is > invalid. Okay, I follow that. But what if "going to" implicitly > restricts the scope of 202:3's requirement to future rules? > In that case, since it wouldn't apply to 202:1, wouldn't it fail to point out a flaw in a prior rule, making it invalid anyway? __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ -- Rule Date: 2003-02-21 11:34:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST