On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:43 PM, comex <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Destroying something is not altering it. While it's possible to word
>> destruction as a change to 'existence', saying this is awkward and
>> unnatural. You wouldn't usually call 'existence' an aspect of
>> something.
>
> I call for judgement on the statement:
> * Rule 2140 exists.
>
> Arguments: See above.
Gratuitous: see below.
"Destroy" in the context of a Rule is a very reasonable synonym
for "Repeal", which is regulated up the wazoo. A precedent for
one weakly general term in a rule deferring to a generally
synonymous, more formally defined and regulated term is found in
Judge's Steve's arguments for CFJ 1426. -Goethe
I also commend, in the language if CFJ 1426, comex's "series of
ingenious posts."
