On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > Gratuitous: Failure to consider a non-obvious potential interpretation > of a rule before someone else points it out does not constitute failure > to know that rule, and thus does constitute a reasonable defense.
But it constitutes failure to have as much knowledge of the rule as one potentially might...
