On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, comex wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Kerim Aydin<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: >>> Ah yes; my trigger publicises the whole contract. Doing it with portions >>> wouldn't necessarily be too difficult, though; you only need one slave >>> contract, which can be amended to add parties actions as needed. >> >> My whole point is, sure you can do that, but it adds a bureaucratic and >> easy-to-screw-up overhead that doesn't actually add anything of value, >> when the alternative is to have the proposed Rule allow relevant clauses >> of private contracts to work. -G. > > See my recent action.
Actually, your recent action would fail my test too, as you didn't publish a clause that actually says you can act on behalf of (withholding a definition of a made-up word is the same as not publishing the information, really). -G.
