On 1/23/2020 8:28 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > More debatable whether: > > 1. intent > 2. intent again > 3. withdraw one intent but not the other > > works, but since it refers to "an announcement of intent", the intended > interpretation is that it applies to the specific announcement, reinforced > by the fact that the other clauses in the rule refer to the specific > announcement in point 1; the announcements are clearly not fungible.
Another thought experiment: 1. intent 2. intent again 3. action that's very direct and explicit in citing intent #1 (e.g. "having posted intent in the quoted message (#1), I do X.") 4. It turns out something minor and technical was wrong with the first intent that wasn't wrong with the second intent. Does it work?
