On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Followup: The old Rule 1527 has been repealed. Nothing has explicitly > replaced it and so the Rules are silent on how to deal with those > situations now. It is perfectly in keeping with custom and precedent, > then, to use R1527 as a method of resolution. Under R1527, the back-and- > forth referring would constitute an ambiguous ordering and thus the > attempts would fail leading 2086/2087 to be false.
Hmm... an old precedent, but the actions in CFJ 1267-70 were a lot more ambiguously ordered than anything considered here, yet one of them was still considered effective.
