On Fri, 19 May 2017, Quazie wrote: > But as insignificant isn't defined, it doesn't seem like the rulekeepor > can make changes to rules, including insignificant ones.
The "fun" of pretending to be a system of judges of lawyers is to come up with evolving precedents for terms-of-art that have common definitions. "significant", "reasonable", "arbitrary", "generally", "clearly", "random", etc. It doesn't always pay to be too prescriptive about such things.
