On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > 2. Since these clauses are only triggered when the rules make a > future event (including a time limit) contingent on a past event This is the crux of the matter, I think. The question is about what happens if something is a time limit but not a future event. In other words, does "A (including B)" include something that's a B but not an A? To me, the problem is that the wording there implies that all time limits are future events, but that blatantly isn't true. I agree that an interpretation which leaves the rules consistent is probably better, though, so if 1's satisfactory it may be the correct one, but I'm not sure if it is.
Also, "another event", not "a past event", but I think that's irrelevant here. -- ais523 [[Note, for some reason my email has suddenly stopped working; I'm sending this via a different, inferior, mailer, to see if it works from here.]]
