Since the ``Pineapple Partnership'' doesn't exist, as a person,
player, or partnership, this response is addressed to Goethe, who in
any case is the person who signed the message.
On 4/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While intent is not evidence, it does suggest this to be a reasonable
assumption and useful precedent: you can refer to rules by number or
names, or both, but if they disagree in a single reference, it adds
enough ambiguity to nullify the rule change.
-Goethe
Are you sure about this? I thought we had had cases before (not
necessarily brought to CFJ) where a rule change was implemented based
on the rule number mentiioned, even though an incorrect title was also
used.
--
C. Maud "specious and parochial" Image (Michael Slone)
I take my right to vote seriously, and I take offense at your
derogatory denigration of my defense of democratic dogma.
-- Kelly, in agora-discussion
