[blackshoe]

RSliwinski, on 2014-May-09, 07:45, said:

Ok, I will try again.
philadelphia_2010. See item 3.

Ah, right, that one. I love it when the lawmakers don't write what they intended, and then "fix" it by redefining plain English.

[gnasher]

I think when we write "What is suggested?" that's just shorthand for "Which actions could demonstrably have been suggested over which other actions?" Similarly, sometimes we write "Did West take advantage" when we actually mean "Did West fail to carefully avoid taking advantage", or we say "The comment is UI" when we mean "The comment is extraneous and any information conveyed by it is UI."

None of these are interpretations of the Laws or descriptions of procedure. They're just a way of making conversation easier.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2014-May-10, 02:02, said:

I think when we write "What is suggested?" that's just shorthand for "Which actions could demonstrably have been suggested over which other actions?" Similarly, sometimes we write "Did West take advantage" when we actually mean "Did West fail to carefully avoid taking advantage", or we say "The comment is UI" when we mean "The comment is extraneous and any information conveyed by it is UI."

None of these are interpretations of the Laws or descriptions of procedure. They're just a way of making conversation easier.

Perhaps so, but it seems to me the goal in speaking of what the laws requires should be precision, rather than ease.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-10, 11:03, said:

Perhaps so, but it seems to me the goal in speaking of what the laws requires should be precision, rather than ease.

For the sake of this forum, I think the goal should be "how should we be ruling?", nothing else.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2014-May-10, 17:58, said:

For the sake of this forum, I think the goal should be "how should we be ruling?", nothing else.

Hm. That gives me an idea. New thread, I think.