Zefram wrote: > I argue that replacing all occurrences of something that does not actually > occur is a null action. Hence in that example both parts are possible, > so that's not an example of the situation that I described in the CFJ.
Can you give me an example? I'm having trouble picturing one. Specifically, I used the concept of separability to determine if a clause was one amendment or two amendments. In other words, if two parts could stand alone, they are two amendments. By that logic, the CFJ statement describes a not-possible situation: >> CFJ 1643: >> where a proposal specifies a single rule amendment in two parts, and >> one of the parts is not possible, the whole attempted amendment fails, >> even if the other part could have been applied if it stood alone Because if the phrase "the other part could have been applied if it stood alone" is true, then it's not a single rule amendment by the logic of my earlier CFJs. I found a couple of these later CFJs in the sequence hard to judge without more concrete examples. -Goethe
