[blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C?

[Jerry Fusselman]

On Dec 6, 2007 4:30 PM, Ed Reppert wrote:
>
> On Dec 6, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote:
>
> > The common usage is that natural means not artificial, so by common
> > usage, no.
>
> Is the common usage correct? IOW, is it what the lawmakers intended?
>

These are two separate questions.  The 2007 lawmakers apparently did
not intent to define natural, because they didn't.  Three days ago,
Grattan wrote this:

> +=+ Would it not be the case that a bid is either artificial or not
> artificial? I am not sure whether the laws (must read them again!)
> use the term 'natural', whereas 'artificial' is defined.
>                                   ~ Grattan ~   +=+

I have a feeling that the lawmakers don't mind if natural and
artificial are perfect antonyms.  Conventional is not defined in the
2007 laws either.  In common usage, conventional and artificial are
two different dimensions admitting all four possible classifications
(including both and neither).

In the 1997 laws, conventional was defined, natural was not, and I was
unable to find anywhere where artificial was defined.

Jerry Fusselman