[blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*************************
"Progress is not an accident but
 a necessity."
                      {Herbert Spencer}
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
+=+ The opinion of the current drafting subcommittee is that
'but' introduces an exception to what has gone immediately
before.  'But see' directs attention to the place in the laws
where the exception is detailed. In specified circumstances
what follows 'but' overrides what has gone just before. This
is considered to be the dictionary meaning of 'but' and explicit.
Thus the majority of the subcommittee see no need for further
clarification.
         It should be added that the usage in applying previous
codes of laws establishes precedents for this view.
                                      ~ Grattan ~   +=+
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Fusselman" <jfusselman at gmail.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] But me no buts [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> "Law X:  A player must do such-and-such (but see Law Y)."
>
> I was hoping that laws in that form would be absent from
> the new law book.  To me, this is a vague style.   If there
is an exception to the requirement to do such-and-such, I
> would like to see the exception explicit and unparenthetical.
>