| Glotmorf on 17 Apr 2002 20:51:10 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal: Do your best to change the subject. |
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 4/17/02 at 12:27 PM Gavin Doig wrote: >>>> <proosal> >>>> <title>Do your best to change the subject.</title> >>>> <body> >>>> Repeal rule 358. [[Never been used, and you can do it anyway.]] >>>> </body> >>>> </proosal> >>>> >>>> uin. >>>> -- >>> >>> "Can do it anyway" isn't quite the issue. Rule 18 talks about things >not >>> prohibited or regulated. Rule 358 regulates things. One could make the >>> argument that since a method of declaring proposal dependence is >mentioned in >>> this rule, any other attempt to make a proposal dependent on another is >>> invalid. >>> >>> Glotmorf >>> >>> >> >> One could make that argument, but one would be wrong. Perhaps a decent >> argument could be made that it was illegal to make a proposal >"dependent" on >> another proposal except in the manner specified in the rule, but nothing >> stops one from doing almost exactly the same thing and simply calling it >> something different. >> >What Wonko said. There's already been a CFJ on this kind of thing, having >to do with standard delimiters. > >uin. There was also CFJ 251 that said that since there's a rule that says how something is done in a particular case, that serves to regulate all cases, and therefore only another explicit rule can permit that thing to be done in a different particular case. In other words, there were two, in my opinion, directly conflicting CFJs. I CFJ'd on that fact, and the answer given was that CFJs don't have to agree with each other. Which means, one could argue (wouldn't you just love to meet this "one"?), that CFJs are 100% arbitrary, and therefore meaningless. Glotmorf