On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 10:12 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > While I'm still, in my Strict Interpretation philosophy, convinced > > that the "is" in R2156 means "is" and not "starts at, subject to > > modification by spending Notes", and while language supporting the > > latter was added and subsequently removed from R2156 before the events > > in question here ... > > Was the subsequent removal an error? -G.
Yes, it was; it was a case of a proposal submitted at about the same time accidentally overwriting the fix. It reverted the wording back to the old ambiguous wording by mistake, rather than the fix wording which was incorporating the CFJ-judged correct interpretation into the ruleset. -- ais523
