Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> This seems to be an argument for replacing (or complementing) "clear" by
> "unobfuscated" in the relevant rule text.

Huh, actually, a leading definition of "obfuscated" is "unclear":
'obfuscate: render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.'

I don't think anyone was arguing that this attempt wasn't intentionally
obfuscated - while D Margaux's counterarguments show you can point to
each required element and say "it's there" (and meets the standard for
"unambiguous"), the net effect is obfuscation.  

So if the "clear" in R1728's "unambiguously and clearly" is going to mean 
anything at all going forward, the judgement should tell us exactly what
"clear" means - does it include "unobfuscated"?  Do we have to amend the
rule to "super-abundantly clear and we really mean it"?