On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:28 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> CFJ 2002 found that rule 2193 was the Monster, and nobody objected to >> this at the time. Therefore, rule 2192 implies that the Mad Scientist >> CAN act on behalf of rule 2193 to take any action that rule 2193 "may >> take". Rule 2141 lists the actions that a rule "may take", in general, >> and there is no reason why it would be different for rule 2193 in >> particular. > > No, it doesn't. It lists possible effects that rule 2193 can have on > the rules. Nothing in rule 2141 describes those effects as actions.
Er, I was actually looking at R105, not R2141, so the above is probably not relevant. -root
