On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Pavitra<celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Ed Murphy<emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> �1) We somehow forgot about the rising support requirement to publish
>>>> � � � multiple NoVs in the same week.
>>>
>>> Didn't forget. The extra NoVs were, IIRC, ILLEGAL but VALID (because
>>> the Rule used MAY, which is nearly always a mistake)
>>
>> No, it's a deliberate design decision: pragmatism over platonism.
>
> I don't think so. After all, it has been since changed to CAN, and
> was originally written by G., who (no offense) seems to make that
> mistake more often in general ("you MAY act on eir behalf to discard
> one" in the current ruleset, for example).
No offense taken, I'll be careful of the pattern. Though I'm not sure
may was an error in the original (when it was a pragmatic "MAY publish"
with no support issues - the pre-great-repeals legal system had a lot
of Kelly-influenced "if you pragmatically publish it (which you can
do naturally), it will be called a Notice, but it's an Invalid Notice
if you do it wrong". So I think it is just an old style thing.
The card was indeed a dumb mistake.
-G.
