On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When interpreting and applying the Rules as a whole in every context > prior to this case, we have always (as far as I know) treated them as > implicitly ANDed; for example, we have never held that persons can > choose to be bound only by an arbitrary subset of the Rules.
Then the CFJ is trivially FALSE as there are many statements in the Rules that are not true-- pure AND does not take into account precedence. Several statements in the Rules (like most of Rule 2213), in fact, are unilaterally false, so higher-powered Rules cannot be taken as some sort of clarification of lower-powered ones. Anyway, the Statement of this case is sufficiently unclear (especially considering that Rules != statements) that I'd say it doesn't exist. > Also, you can't rule on a CFJ that doesn't exist, so your attempted > ruling is nonsensical. True-- I suppose you can't appeal my not-ruling but you're welcome to CFJ on whether this case exists.
