On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 6:09 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It seems to me the contract is basically unenforceable. R1742, which > > requires its parties to adhere to it, has lower power than Rule 105, > > which restricts the ways by which entities can become rules. > Nonsense. The contract just requires that we *pretend* that it's a > rule, something regulated by no rule except R2149.
I believe you've just violated the contract. Admitting that you're only pretending it's a rule is clearly not acting "as if [it] were a rule". -root
