| Tyler on Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:43:58 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-b] [s-d] Consultation 203 |
Yes, he didn't consider the arguments ais523 made in his scam, (which ehird did cite, btw) but his reasoning was correct. There was nothing that gave ais523 power to repeal that rule. The relevant Rule text: "Contracts may be modified with the explicit approval of all parties, as well as in any other way allowed by that Contract." Although it is ambiguous, in my opinion the only action it allows is modifying the contract. If the "way" that is supposedly "allowed by that Contract" is impossible to traverse, (sidenote: then it isn't really allowed by the Contract, is it?) then you can't modify the Contract, since that action is dependent on the traversal of the way. That's my interpretation, and it seems to be consistent with the original intent. Thus I claim the Answer to 203 to be CONSISTENT. On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Elliott Hird < penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 26 Jan 2009, at 17:58, Ed Murphy wrote: > > When you're discussing multiple scams, you really should specify which >> one you have in mind at any given point. >> > > The one I quoted in the arguments, perhaps?! > > _______________________________________________ > spoon-discuss mailing list > spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss > -- -Tyler _______________________________________________ spoon-business mailing list spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business