On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
> "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 just realized this definitely fails due to R105:
This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can
become a rule or cease to be a rule.
Whether or not I attempted to repeal a rule, repealing doesn't destroy
the thing but merely cause it to "cease to be a rule", which
definitely counts as modifying an aspect of it. By Rule 105 it's
impossible to actually destroy a rule at power < 3.
*sigh*... forgot about that. I retract my CFJ.
