On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that > case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes > "requires", as does the third paragraph; however, our scam was based on > the paragraph and subsections between those, which don't include any > language about requirement. We aren't delaying a requirement time; > instead, we're delaying "the time limit to perform an action", which is > much more CAN-friendly action.
Except that "between those" text is only functional for when the rules set a time limit for a FUTURE event. The rules set the time limit for dependent intent is a time limit for a PAST event, so that's covered at all there. -Goethe
