From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 12:38:46 PDT
Richard Holmes wrote: > > 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. I interpret "such a requirement" in 208:5 as referring to "a requirement on all rules", so 208:5 is not inconsistent with 208:3. It's all a big mucky gray area, as I see it, and so What The Judge Sez Goes. Of course, you can overturn judgment via proposal. -- Rule Date: 2003-05-15 02:10:32 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST