From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 06:22:20 PDT
Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> writes:
> Richard Holmes wrote:
>
[snip]
> >rules. And of course, none of the VALID rules to date actually
> >imposes such a requirement.
[snip]
> I interpret the excerpt of 208:3 as placing a requirement only on 208:3.
Much as I hate to argue against the validity of my own rule, I must
point out that if 208:3's "As required, ..." statement is in fact
interpreted as a restriction on itself and not (as I interpreted)
merely an assertion that the rule is obeying a (not-yet-existing)
restriction, then the above sentence from 208:5 is inconsistent with
208:3.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
"We're waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on." -- Pete Seeger
--
Rule Date: 2003-05-14 13:22:36 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST