On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to > rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary > English meaning of what it says. "with 2 supporting Senators" is with 2 > supporting Senators, no firstclassness mentioned or implied anywhere...
So we have a question of whether "supporting senators" is a reasonable R754(a) grammatical map to "with N support (restricted to senators) or whether some common definition of "supporting senators" must be assumed. I'd strongly favor R754(a). In addition to that clause taking precedence over the common language clause, game custom is strongly in support of "with N support[suffix] [of] [subclass of dependent-action- capable entities]" being a dependent action; for one thing several contracts would break if we broke this link. -Goethe
