On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2282: FALSE >> >> Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments >> was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation" >> requires that the annotation was true, which this purported >> annotation was not. > > What, you think there has never been an annotation made in error?
By Murphy's logic, if there were past annotations made in error, then they were just false (="not") annotations, but no-one knew that, and if anyone questioned them/provided evidence we'd learn they had been false. That's not internally inconsistent with the ruling, anyway. In previous versions of the ruleset, when annotations were more rigidly defined (e.g. R789/5 "Such an [ordered by a judge] annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule.") then something that wasn't introduced with such a method was simply a piece of text that the rulekeepor happened to include and not an annotation. Murphy is extrapolating the same principle when the rules are (now) silent. Personally, I find a more persuasive argument in noting an annotation by common definition is "a note added by way of comment or explanation" on a text and not a part of the text itself, therefore an annotation is not a R2141-part of the "content", "form", or "text" of the rule, and therefore does not have a rule's scope or regulatory abilities, irrespective of the annotation's truth or falsity. -Goethe
