On Nov 28, 2007 6:13 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BobTHJ wrote: > > > nkep would be nonsensical even if it were a defined action either in > > the rules or a contract. These statements are not contradictory. > > Then in what way would the private whatever-it-is impact the > appropriateness of judgement on either CFJ 1799 or CFJ 1805? > > Beccause, nkep can be both nonsensical and an action at the same time. Just because it is nonsense doesn't mean it can't be an action (and therefore permissible).
BobTHJ
