On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 19:44 +0000, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:40 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote: > > >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> >> And with necessary support, I filibuster 5842-5941. > > >> >> > > >> > I intend, with 4 supporting senators, to end these filibusters. > > >> > > >> I post the following Sell Ticket: > > >> > > >> * Cost: 15 VP > > >> * Action: Cause myself and two other first-class senators to support > > >> these attempts to end the > > >> filibusters on proposals 5842-5941. > > >> > > >> I affirm that I have contracts with two other first-class senators of > > >> the form: > > > Senators don't have to be first-class to break filibusters, do they? The > > > rule says "with four supporting senators". Maybe I'll go and bribe some > > > partnerships, it's probably cheaper. > > > > Only first-class players can support dependent actions, period. > > > What dependent action? Read rule 1728(a).
My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary English meaning of what it says. "with 2 supporting Senators" is with 2 supporting Senators, no firstclassness mentioned or implied anywhere... -- ais523
