comex wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> Proposal 6306 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Murphy >> Patch objections >> ... >> The above notwithstanding, if the action depends on objections, >> and an objection to it has been withdrawn within the past 24 >> hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with the intent. > > > Note that if "the above notwithstanding" counts as a claim of > precedence, Rule 2240 causes the quoted paragraph to have no effect. > I think.
It does, but 2240 only applies to self-contradictory chains of precedence/deference clauses within a rule. If a rule simply reads "X, but notwithstanding that, Y", then 2240 does not apply, and common sense says that Y succeeds in taking precedence over X.
