On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:12, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Roger Hicks <pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Irrelevant. The audit rule specifically attempts to address what would >> occur if there is no auditing entity (and by this we can only infer >> that the author's intent was non-person entity). Since it would be >> impossible for the Accountor to perform destruction at the same >> instant a non-person entity or non-entity initiates an audit, the rule >> text suggests that the audit creates an obligation for future card >> destruction (one without a time limit). > > The fact that the Accountor will necessarily violate the rule just > means e's NOT GUILTY under the old EXCUSED criteria, not that the rule > doesn't mean what it says. > Of course the rule means what it says. It just doesn't say what you're suggesting. Were you not among those adamant that the text of the rule is supreme even when it conflicts with the author's intent and the good of the game?
BobTHJ
