On 29/07/2013 7:49 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 19:41 -0400, Fool wrote:
Anyways, I did see your other message (sorry, a lot to reply to). The
rule has power three and says I can do it by announcement. You really
have to argue the rule does not say so, the other arguments are
extraneous. Otherwise you're saying whenever something is secured, and a
sufficiently powered rule says it CAN be done by announcement, it still
fails.
Hmm. I thought that was indeed the case, but it seems that that higher
standard only applies to rule changes, not secured changes in general.
(So any of your attempts to change rules via this scam fail, but that by
itself does not stop the deregistration.)
Nonsense. Once everyone is de-registered, the rest follows by ordinary
processes.
However, Rule 1688 says
"except as allowed by an Instrument". I don't think you can point to a
single instrument that's doing the allowing here (given that you've
constructed your logic based on the interaction of multiple rules), and
the rule doesn't say "an Instrument or combination of Instruments", so
it still stops the scam, just not for the reason I thought.
Well, that still means that any such permission that occurs by multiple
rules interacting fails. E.g. something is secured, one rule says that
the holder of an office CAN do something by announcement, various other
rules identify the holder of that office. All of those fail.
