On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/17/11 20:17, omd wrote: >> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Ed Murphy<[email protected]> wrote: >>> Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by replacing "one" with >>> "two". >> This amendment modifies two clauses > I'd say that's ambiguous.
I was going to say that; then I noticed that I had used the same language repeatedly in my judicial questions proposal without thinking about it, intending to replace multiple instances, and thought that actually, the /g is usually implied in ordinary language. I thought I remembered a past amendment of the same form which was rejected due to ambiguity, but after a search I couldn't find it. So I decided to accept both proposals...
