On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > It also explicitly allows "the time limit to perform an action". I admit
> > that that's the most tenuous part of the whole scam, though; arguably,
> > the rule contradicts itself there, and the interpretation in which the
> > scam doesn't work is the more plausible one.
>
> Yes, the issue is that the phrase ("including the time limit to perform
> an action") is a parenthetical on "future event". Two reasonably
> consistent ways to read this:
I've now come to the conclusion that none of the scams worked, pretty
much based on your arguments; mine/comex's relied on an ambiguity, and
although it could be resolved so that the scam worked that isn't the
most natural reading of the rule, and you've already explained why yours
didn't work.
I object to all intents to perform dependent actions where the intents
were given during the recent holiday (just to make sure...)
--
ais523
