On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >>> 5798 D 1 3.0 Goethe Toughen Ratifiation >> AGAINST. "Without objection and with support" is not a defined method >> of dependent actions. > > 'Without objection' is defined. > 'with support' is defined. > 'and' is defined. > > So why doesn't this work? (not bothered, just convince me it doesn't > and I'll re-propose). -G.
This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The paragraph does say "at least one of the following methods", but I think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for performing the same dependent action, not that an otherwise undefined composite of multiple methods is allowed as a single method. -root
