I agree but while it would be true that it would "exist in some form"; it
wouldn't exist as an "asset", and the rule refers to the existence of
assets themselves, not abstract items in general.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:46 AM, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, CuddleBeam
> wrote:
> >
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, CuddleBeam wrote:
> Arguments:
> - CFJ 3532 ("Assets with multiple backing documents can't exist")
> - R2166 states "An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule", however,
> this is in itself a definition of what an asset is - it is an entity defined
> as such b
I express interest in this one.
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 9:56 AM, CuddleBeam
wrote:
> I could proto-CFJ this but I feel like its good enough to merit a normal
> CFJ.
>
> I CFJ: "No rule other than rule 2166 can be a backing document."
>
> Arguments:
> - CFJ 3532 ("Assets with multiple backing docu
3 matches
Mail list logo
