On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote: > On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 08:51 -0400, comex wrote: >> No you didn't, because (a) your "notice" clearly stated that you >> intended to amend without objections, and couldn't possibly have >> qualified as notice that you would do so via another mechanism > > Note that my change to Points Party was /not/ a dependent action. It was > simply a change per R2198(c); the contract stated that if I'd given 4 > days notice, then I could make the change. I had given the notice, > therefore I could make the change. R1728 is completely irrelevant here, > because no dependent action was involved. (This part of the scam largely > consisted of convincing everyone that dependent actions /were/ relevant, > to cause them to miss the real scam.)
If I say "I intend to take the train to Buffalo" I have not made any implication, announcement of intent, nor given any notice whatsoever on whether I might intend to drive a car to Buffalo should the train get stuck in the snow. -G.
