> On May 22, 2017, at 2:58 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> Oy. What a hash I’ve made, all by failing to search for a single term.
>
> Yah, that rule has two fairly buried definitions; the "secured" definition
> is also pretty hidden if you ask me.
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Oy. What a hash I’ve made, all by failing to search for a single term.
Yah, that rule has two fairly buried definitions; the "secured" definition
is also pretty hidden if you ask me.
Oy. What a hash I’ve made, all by failing to search for a single term.
I move to reconsider this judgement. As I am the judge, I can do so by
announcement (r. 911). I also immediately pass judgement on it.
I find CFJ 3482 to be FALSE, affirming my judgement. However, my conclusion and
reasoning
On Mon, 22 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> No rule defines an “Instrument.”
R1688 defines "Instrument" explicitly: "An Instrument is an entity with
positive
Power."
> Therefore, it cannot fall under the clause allowing Rules to have non-zero
> Power.
No, it falls under the clause of R1688
4 matches
Mail list logo
