On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > At this point, I'm more curious to see whether the escalation worked, > rather than eager to prove that it worked. I like scams, but I don't > like trying to convince people that scams worked when they blatantly > didn't. As for this one, I don't know; I still don't see any obvious > reason why a rule couldn't amend a proposal's text, but am prepared to > be argued otherwise, if the arguments are good enough.
Problem is, I don't see any direct and obvious reason why it couldn't; I also don't see any direct and obvious reason why the one in question could. Which puts the final argument as hinging (IMO) on a "good of the game" sway which might be a little unsatisfactory to everyone. -G.
