On Tue, 26 May 2009, comex wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> Proposal 6306 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Murphy >> Patch objections >> ... >> The above notwithstanding, if the action depends on objections, >> and an objection to it has been withdrawn within the past 24 >> hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with the intent. > > > Note that if "the above notwithstanding" counts as a claim of > precedence, Rule 2240 causes the quoted paragraph to have no effect. > I think.
IMO it's only a R2240 if whatever is in "the above" explicitly claims precedence over this clause, therefore creating warring circular claims. Otherwise it's pretty natural to read the whole rule as "A unless B" without inferring a contradiction. -G.
