On 10/25/2012 12:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote: > ... >> ... Nothing in the text suggests an >> unfettered right of creating new definitions of "vacant." > > You mean, new compared to the first definition in Merriam-Webster.com? > > 1: not occupied by an incumbent, possessor, or officer <a vacant office> > <vacant thrones>
C'mon Brian, not helpful. We're talking about the BCP 101 "definition of vacant" which unfortunately is not nearly so precise. If there were no mention of 3777 in the text then there would appear to be more leeway in declaring a position vacant. > Objectively and factually, that seems to be the case. I get that this is what you believe to be true, however what some of us are saying is that we don't agree. Given that the only choices are "vacant, or recall;" and given that the vacant state of the seat isn't 100% clear, at this time recall is the only option. Doug
