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

spoon-business mailing list