On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > I support. If someone says something not in the rules with an intent to > perform an action, normally it is reasonable to presume they meant the > correct version not the incorrect version (per R754); however, if the > rules in question have recently changed, there is enough doubt to > prevent the intention being clear (as is currently required for > dependent actions).
Let me get this straight--- you and ehird honestly and truly believe that a change *that happened before you registered in the game and you never saw* can be reasonably confused with an old rule? (Apologies if I've got registration dates mixed). And that comex citing A RULE THAT HAS BEEN OUT OF THE RULESET FOR YEARS is backup evidence? Can you at least, vaguely, occasionally, *try to pretend* that you're willing to let judgements stand in place of your self-interest? Just as an *occasional* courtesy? -G.
