On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > Gratuitous arguments: I identified the contract as the one named UNDEAD. > If that contract doesn't exist, clearly the intent fails.
If there's one that has that name, but don't know it exists, have you "clearly" identified it? If there's more than one that have similar names (perhaps none exact) have you specified any of them? If there's one with that exact name with entirely different members that does something entirely different than the one you "meant", have you specified that one? The fact that absolutely no "reasonable" outside observer can answer these questions from your CFJ plus anything on the public forum/reports/references etc. means you haven't "clearly" identified anything, regardless of what sort of contract actually may exist. As I said, "clearly" is strong enough to prevent hidden but directly-written notices of intent, it should be strong enough to prevent fishing expeditions against weakly-specified or conjectural information. -Goethe
