ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 10:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> I believe that argument is only valid within a certain scope. In >> particular, consider it in conjunction with G.'s gratuitous arguments >> in the same case; there was certainly reasonable opportunity to review >> the possibility of a loophole in the various without-objection methods, >> but I don't think there was reasonable opportunity to review the >> possibility of declaring with-notice after the fact. > > There was a 4-day window, after I had specifically said that there was a > scam. How is that not an opportunity?
The domain of the argument is whether or not this opportunity was "reasonable", by whatever standards we might determine it. Just as it would be possible but probably unreasonable for someone to catch a with-notice intent buried in the middle of (say) the Herald's report, it was possible but arguably unreasonable for someone to have seen your objection-based intents and gone looking for a scam within a non-objection-based clause.
