Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 19, 2009, at 5:17 AM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
First, here's the scam that was basically guaranteed to work at least
partially, and it did. (The others can wait.)
Points Party requires "4 days notice" for me to be able to amend it
(not
With Notice, but rather the ordinary-language sense); I gave the
notice,
and here's the amendment. As there have now been 4 days of notice
(that
I intended to amend Points Party), I hereby amend Points Party to the
text shown within the {{{ }}} marks in the quote above.
No you didn't, because (a) your "notice" clearly stated that you
intended to amend without objections, and couldn't possibly have
qualified as notice that you would do so via another mechanism (adding
plain "I intend" to the list of intents would probably have avoided
this), and (2) "with 4 days notice" is close enough that it almost
certainly counts as With Notice now that such exists in the rules.
(Compare how all contract-defined dependent actions were re-
interpreted as real not pseudo-dependent actions when R1728 was
amended to allow them.)
I think the requirement here is stronger than in 2624. In that case
the rule was quite specific, requiring that you announced that you
intended to do X. A message saying that you intended to do X without
objection may technically satisfy that, but it's not ordinary-language
valid notice for doing it with another mechanism.
