comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2282: FALSE >> >> Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments >> was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation" >> requires that the annotation was true, which this purported >> annotation was not. > > What, you think there has never been an annotation made in error?
Okay, it at least requires that the annotator reasonably believes the annotation to be true. I don't think you reasonably believed that the "has been able for several months" was true pre-scam. Also, if the scam clause was added, then if anything it sets the standards for "annotation" higher than before.
