On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 16:01 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> As permitted by both Rule 2223 and the rule created by Rule 6130, I
> cause Rule 2223 to amend itself to read:
>
> This rule intentionally left blank.
Time for a last-ditch effort to salvage something out of this for me. I
have no idea whether this particular line of reasoning will stand up in
court, but am not yet convinced it is incorrect.
I call for judgement on the statement "Murphy's recent attempt to cause
Rule 2223 to amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank'
was using the mechanism specified in rule 2223, rather than the
mechanism specified in the rule created by proposal 6130.", barring
Murphy.
I call for judgement on the statement "Murphy's recent attempt to cause
Rule 2223 to amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank'
failed because it was ambiguous which of two mechanisms were used to do
the amendment.", barring Murphy.
I call for judgement on the statement "Murphy's recent attempt to cause
Rule 2223 to amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank'
failed because it attempted to claim indirect authority from the
non-existent Rule 6130.", barring Murphy.
Arguments:
Ambiguous actions are normally taken to fail. I'm not sure whether the
action Murphy tried was ambiguous enough to cause it to fail, but it
certainly isn't completely clear-cut. Rule changes are held to a higher
standard, as is shown by this quote from rule 105:
{{{
Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes
that change to be void and without effect.
}}}
--
ais523
