On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > which don't conflict with each other, so B effectively wins. This > proposal changes the expansions to > > Rule A: X doing Y does not violate the rules. > Rule B: X doing Y violates Rule B. > > thus forcing a conflict, which is then resolved via precedence > as usual.]
I'm not sure the conflict is what you think it is. That X doing Y violates Rule B does imply that it also violates the rules as a whole; if Rule A takes precedence, then X doing Y does not violate the rules, but it doesn't invalidate the statement entirely. A criminal case can still be brought against X because he violated Rule B, even if not the rules as a whole. It's my opinion that this might apply to things like R101 as well, a bug with the criminal case system...
