Re: [s-d] [s-b] fire and water

[comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> No, that's not the correct interpretation of R393/0. Here's the text:
>
>  No Judgement shall change the effect of actions performed more than two
>  nweeks before the corresponding RFJ was made, even if those actions were
>  illegal or impossible. Such actions shall always be treated as if they
>  were legal and possible.
>
> The rule is about what RFJs can reverse. The reversibility of an action by
> RFJ doesn't depend on there actually being an RFJ made about it, just on
> the amount of time elapsed since the action.

I suppose you have a better viewpoint for interpretation of A rules
than I; however, the amount of time elapsed is defined with respect to
the "corresponding RFJ".  As this does not exist the clause cannot
possibly apply.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss