G. wrote: > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Judge Murphy's Arguments: >> >> I interpret "modify" as limited to changing an existing value, not >> initializing an aspect that previously lacked a value. >> > > Isn't this in direct conflict with a judgement about a recent scam > failure, where "modify" or a synonym was found to include initialization? > Can't remember the details but does this ring a bell with anyone else?
2945 found that "change" includes "remove", but is silent on whether it includes "add". You're changing the entity, but can you be said to "change" a value if there was no previous value? (Admittedly my interpretation is not obviously correct, hence the fix proposal.) (Note: I botched the statement of 2945; it should have been "Removing counts as 'changing', thus cannot be done etc." in which case your same argument would have led to TRUE.)
