On 06/15/2011 05:53 PM, Pavitra wrote: > This is not at all obvious to me. Backwards-disclaimers *might* work if > the disclaimer was in the same atomic message as the disclaimed text, > but in the case of any kind of confusion, I would strongly lean towards > evaluating in chronological order, with the context of each statement > determined solely by its predecessors.
I've just come across CFJ 1971, which indicates that a disclaimer can affect earlier parts of the same (atomic?) message. Hrm.
