Yeah, and no judge will choose the dumb option over the non-dumb option, so I think we can all just agree that assets work, and that lists are silly.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it's probably ambiguous enough to apply common sense. > > -Aris > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:09 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I suppose as a counter point you could have a sentence that says "this >> is an agreement between Jeff, Johnny, Jackson, Jolene, and Jacqueline >> (hereafter 'Parties'). Obviously Jeff's a party. >> >> And I suppose it's like "A contract is an entity defined as such by >> one of these things, hereafter its backing document". It does work, it >> looks like I was just tricked mercilessly by embedded lists. Let that >> be a lesson to you all. >> >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:02 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Surely the parenthetical refers to the last item in the list. I mean, >>> if it were another modifying clause (eg: I need a fruit, a vegetable, >>> an omnibus or a piece of chocolate, which must be yellow), it would >>> only refer to the last item in the list. Or in a sentence like "My >>> name is Jeff, I wear a hat, sunglasses, a watch, and trousers (which >>> are yellow), that would surely refer to the trousers, not his whole >>> attire. >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 20:39 VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> From rule 2166, "Assets" >>>>> >>>>> "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b) authorized >>>>> regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized regulations (but if >>>>> such regulations modify a preexisting asset class defined by a rule or >>>>> another title of regulations, they must be authorized specifically to >>>>> do so by their parent rule), or (d) contract (hereafter its backing >>>>> document)" >>>>> >>>>> It is clear that a backing document is only a contract from the way >>>>> the rule is written. This was clearly just added in a non-careful way, >>>>> but textually, a contract is a backing document and nothing else is. >>>>> Therefore, there's no recordkeepor because "The recordkeepor of a >>>>> class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound >>>>> by, its backing document.". A rule of lower power defines the >>>>> Treasuror as the recordkeepor for shinies, but that must defer to this >>>>> higher power rule. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think that this is clear at all. There is no grammatical rule that >>>> forces the referent of the parenthetical to be one element of the list >>>> rather than the rest of the list, and the rest of the rule is, as you have >>>> observed, largely nonsensical without it. >>>> >>>> -Alexis >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
