| Alex Smith on Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:37:53 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 203 |
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 09:21 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > I find the claim CONSISTENT. Just because 5E57 evaluates to "Contract > X may be modified by modifying Rule Y" doesn't imply that you can > modify Rule Y, only that *if* you manage to modify Rule Y then you > thereby also modify Contract X. I agree with this as far as it goes; however, I was explicitly scamming a loophole in rule 5e10 (probably my favourite of all of the B rules for scamming). Rule 5e57 doesn't contain the loophole itself, just opens a loophole in another rule. -- ais523 _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss