Murphy wrote: > My interpretation is that "X shall perform action Y" is equivalent to > "X is required and allowed to perform Y exactly once", unless clearly > indicated otherwise.
Hmm, that's a possibility. I suppose my argument would be more appropriate if the rule said "may" instead of "shall". We'll see what a judge says. However, this raises another potential CFJ: whether the garbled message on Friday was sufficiently cogent to work, or if Saturday's message was the actual awarding of the title. There may or may not be timing issues related to this. Sherlock __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
