‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, November 10, 2019 5:49 PM, Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/19 8:49 AM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > What I don't understand about these arguments is that, no matter how you > > parse "by announcement", the 2577 text immediately modifies "by > > announcement" with "by its owner". So no matter what the other conditions > > are, only the owner can perform this specific action. > > > > > Rule 2577/2 > > > Asset Actions [Excerpt] > > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement > > > by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its > > > backing document. > > My argument is that Rule 478's clause doesn't import the restriction on > who CAN perform the action from the authorizing clause. R2577's clause > only authorizes the owner to transfer the asset, but R478's clause says > that I do perform the action by clearly specifying it and announcing > that I do so - it is (if my scam works) a separate method of performing > the action. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jason Cobb This doesn't make sense to me, at all. The "by announcement" method is specified in a subclause of a sentence, it doesn't make sense that the surrounding context is somehow irrelevant. I could buy this if it said "by announcement, by its owner" and the argument was that those were separate, but the lack of a comma makes it clear that their connected. I have a question about this hypothetical version: > Rule 2577/X > Asset Actions [Excerpt] > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement > subject to modification by its backing document. This can only be > done by its owner. Would you say your scam works in that case? Because as I see it, that's just an expanded form of the current wording.
