[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 25/07/07, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows
> > > > > ..............
> > > > I wouldn't dream that 'understanding' encompasses both 'agreement'
> > > > and 'experience' from anything written in the laws.
> > >
> > > If you with this are stating that you have "agreements" and "experience"
> > > on which you base your calls at the bridge table in spite of not
> > > "understanding" these "agreements" and "experiences" I absolutely
> > > understand your position, but I really hope (for your sake) that you
> > > understand what you and your partner are doing at the bridge table?
> > >
> >
> > Sven you are mixing to different things ...
> >
> > I understand is a verb
> >
> > An understanding is a noun
> >
> > It is the noun understanding that is used in the Law 40 not the verb
> > understand.
>
> And your "understanding" is what you "understand" - right?

I "understand" much more than my "understandings".

Wayne

>
> Sven
>
> PS.: It would be better if you send your comments to BLML only and not also
> directly to me. Two copies of each message is nothing but a nuisance.
>

Very sorry.  I delete the address but occasionally i forget.