comex wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> Mine is semantically and logically 100% accurate, in that the CFJ >> statement "a Notice of Intent is required to be posted before the time >> a matching w/o Objection action is performed" would be judged TRUE based >> on R1728. This matches the exact wording of the Holiday Rule "if A is >> required before given time B". The fact that the same statement would >> also be true for *any* given time B 0-4 days before the action doesn't >> alter/reduce its truth or the fact that it matches the holiday rule >> precisely. > > Don't be so sure... I too thought I had a sure winner when the wording > of Rule 2141 (a rule may) matched the MS rule (the Monster may do), > but it was judged to not work.
That apparently hinged on CFJ 2230 (involving "The Monster may take" without MMI capitalization). I don't see any such problem here; 1728(b) says the announcement of intent needs to be at least four days earlier, but then 1769 (para. 3) (same Power and claims precedence) says "no, it need not be done until 72 hours after" etc..
