On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 06:39 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote: > For the record, this dates back to the IADoP report of 2014-10-15, and > was equally vague back then. A quick scan of a-b around that same time > turns up an attempted scam involving the office, but nothing obviously > suggesting that Rule 2437 wasn't created or that it fails to effectively > define the office into existence. omd, do you remember anything more?
I remember something more. There were various attempts to scam the office in question. IIRC, some of these scam attempts tried to repeal the office in an attempt to close the loophole behind them. So it'd depend on whether or not the scams were judged successful, something that I can't remember the resolution of. -- ais523
