On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:35 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Probably rule 101 stops this being effective, though, but arguably it > does much the same with respect to the PRS.
I'd argue that R101 doesn't protect anyone from contracts they're already party to changing. I do, however, still maintain that R101(i) makes every SHALL in the ruleset completely ineffective, including this hypothetical one.
