On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:46 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> R2214 could be clearer, but it's reasonable to extrapolate that the >> rules are repealed by the effect of R2214. At least, that's how we've >> always done this sort of thing in the past. > > I swear there's a precedent (or at least custom) to the effect that > the rule has to say "X can cause this rule to repeal itself".
Ah, you're right. CFJs 1499 and 1624. -root
