[blml] Psyches & deviations

[Wayne Burrows]

On 23/01/07, Ed Reppert <ereppert at rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote:
>
> > I agree except that a CPU does not have to be illegal.  Your example
> > below is if a CPU is in no way illegal if it had been disclosed as the
> > PU.
>
> This makes no sense. If an understanding has been disclosed it cannot
> be a "concealed" understanding. Conversely, if it is concealed it is
> illegal *because* it is concealed.
>

It makes a whole lot more sense if you quoted me in context.  I was
responding to John Probst who said "If it isn't then we can get the
partnership under "playing illegal conventions", which to all intent
is what a CPU is."

I was just trying to say that a CPU did not have to be an 'illegal
convention' not that a CPU was in anyway legimate.

I suppose I could have made this more clear but it seemed clear to me
at the time I wrote it.

Wayne