‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 6:28 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 11/10/19 7:24 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> > This seems like an inconsistency in your arguments. The "on Tuesdays"
> > clause is imported, but the "by its owner" clause isn't? They're
On 11/10/19 7:24 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
This seems like an inconsistency in your arguments. The "on Tuesdays" clause is imported,
but the "by its owner" clause isn't? They're serving exactly the same syntactic purpose
in exactly the same structure.
While they may have the same
---
Nch
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 6:22 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 11/10/19 7:19 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> > Or better yet:
> >
> > > Rule 2577/Y
> > > Asset Actions [Excerpt]
> > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by
On 11/10/19 7:19 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
Or better yet:
Rule 2577/Y
Asset Actions [Excerpt]
An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
on Tuesdays to another entity, subject to modification by its
backing document.
Would you argue that someone could do it
On 11/10/19 7:17 PM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
I have a question about this hypothetical version:
Rule 2577/X
Asset Actions [Excerpt]
An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement
subject to modification by its backing document. This can only be
done by its owner.
---
Nch
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 6:17 PM, Nch wrote:
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Sunday, November 10, 2019 5:49 PM, Jason Cobb jason.e.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 11/10/19 8:49 AM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> >
> > > What I don't
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, November 10, 2019 5:49 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 11/10/19 8:49 AM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> > What I don't understand about these arguments is that, no matter how you
> > parse "by announcement", the 2577 text immediately modifies "by
> >
On 11/10/19 8:49 AM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote:
What I don't understand about these arguments is that, no matter how you parse "by announcement",
the 2577 text immediately modifies "by announcement" with "by its owner". So no matter
what the other conditions are, only the owner can
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, November 9, 2019 10:06 PM, Jason Cobb
wrote:
> On 11/9/19 7:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > > Rather, I think that this clause does definition-by-properties of "by
> > > announcement", where it ascribes properties to a phrase, but doesn't
> > > give
On 11/9/19 7:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Rather, I think that this clause does definition-by-properties of "by
announcement", where it ascribes properties to a phrase, but doesn't
give
an actual textual definition to the phrase. I think this is conceptually
similar to how the Rules don't say
On 11/9/2019 2:53 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 11/9/19 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
In the R478 text:
> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
> clearly specifying the action and announcing that e
On 11/9/19 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
In the R478 text:
> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
> clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.
The word "define" indicates
Proto-judgement for CFJ 3781:
In the R478 text:
> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
> clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.
The word "define" indicates that it is
13 matches
Mail list logo
