On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Pavitra <celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: > As far as I can tell, we usually interpret in the way that makes the > rules not-broken. We treat the rules as meaning what they seem to mean > and what they are intended to mean. This does not block scams > categorically, because this standard only applies in a relatively narrow > range of cases. There are a great many situations where the text of the > rules clearly allows some form of deliciously horrible scammy brokenness > But when all else fails, choose the non-perverse reading. > > I cash the Promise (2011-04-24 omd).
Since I'm already deemed to have said what ought to be said, I'll add only that I think the principle was already well-established in precedent.
