On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, 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.
Oh I'm not at all sure. If there's a weakness, though, I would guess it would be because the R1769p3 talks about "requiring" and, since the whole intent-dependent action sequence is not in fact required, it's a little weird to say (in normal circumstances) that performing a dependent action back-creates a requirement. Weird, but not out of the question. If that's too weird for a judge, R1769p3 doesn't apply, none of these attempts work, and dependent actions are governed by R1769p4-6 instead. In this case we return to the original discussion between Murphy and Wooble of what works at all. Or, if all of 1769p3-6 apply, we get ehird's self-contradictions. Maybe. -Goethe
