On 4 August 2013 18:19, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > In theory, Rule 217 should make the consensus platonically correct unless it > blatantly contradicts the text. In practice, it might not actually stand up > for 20 years, never mind the time before that wording existed and the > likelihood of unambiguous pre-ratification errors that I was more concerned > about.
The ways in which things are broken are more interesting than the ways in which they worked out fine, I think.
