Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RFJ 28: Ruling

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Dan:
> > >> Debts are not Objects as defined by Rule 316/0.
> > 
> > I Rule: FALSE
> 
> This is judicial precedent that the rules are non-case specific.
> Capitalization of the rules is there only to look nice.  I like it this
> way (because I usually screw up the capitalization of my proposals) so I'm
> pointing this out to everyone so we don't have to go throught his all
> again.
> 
> Poulenc

Hmm. If I looked hard enough, I bet I could find a Rule where the 
capitalization *does* matter, which would be grounds for overturning this 
precedent.

-- 
J.