On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, comex wrote: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Followup: The old Rule 1527 has been repealed. Nothing has explicitly >> replaced it and so the Rules are silent on how to deal with those >> situations now. It is perfectly in keeping with custom and precedent, >> then, to use R1527 as a method of resolution. Under R1527, the back-and- >> forth referring would constitute an ambiguous ordering and thus the >> attempts would fail leading 2086/2087 to be false. > > Hmm... an old precedent, but the actions in CFJ 1267-70 were a lot > more ambiguously ordered than anything considered here, yet one of > them was still considered effective.
If you read the judgements and appeals on those you'll see there was a lot of controversy (and I personally believe the wrong decision in 1267). In any case, that was a situation with two "concurrent" statements that didn't actually refer to each other, not statements which have a definite ordering in the message, but at the same time have to be taken as a simultaneous cross-referring whole. That's a different "kind" of ambiguity. -Goethe
