Well, one of the many such precedents stretching back forever. On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 4:00 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 22:57 -0700, omd wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write > > > up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a > > > bunch of copies, and then start handing them out to everyone I know. > > > That seems like it would fulfill a natural language meaning of > > > "distributing a proposal". > > > > Indeed, this wording refers to, but is not itself meant to codify, the > > presumption that when the rules say something like "distribute a > > proposal", they are creating a term of art rather than adopting a > > natural language definition. > > CFJ 3719 seems like relevant precedent. > > -- > ais523 > > -- >From R. Lee
