On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> This argument fails utterly: quote the first half of that sentence
> {{{
> If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they
> still define that entity but with different properties,
> }}}
> and the then clause fails to apply. No way is spending a Note to
> increase voting limit /amending/ the rules that define voting limit.
Um, I'm talking about the rule defining Voting Limit, which was
previously amended. Voting Limit has been amended to define "Voting
Limit *is* Caste". Therefore, the above rule says that Voting Limit
exists exactly to the extent possible under its new definition, and
that definition starts and ends with voting limit=caste, and it is
*simply not possible* by R1586 for voting limit to exist in a state
other than its caste. So any rule claiming otherwise would have to,
at least, supersede R1586.
I don't have precedence backwards unless 1586 is somehow numerically
greater than 2126. Or are you redefining ordinal numbers, too?
-Goethe
