[blml] She sells sea shalls [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

>From the "De Wael School and WBF LC thread" ->

Ed Reppert:

[snip]

>>Preface to (American edition) or Scope and Interpretation of (English
>>edition) the laws: When a player "should" do something ("a claim
>>should be accompanied at once by a statement..."), his failure to do
>>it is an infraction of Law, which will jeopardise his rights, but
>>which will seldom incur a procedural penalty. In contrast, when these
>>Laws say that a player "shall" do something ("No player shall take
>>any action until the Director has explained...."), a violation will
>>be penalised more often than not. The strongest word, "must" ("before
>>making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates
>>that violation is regarded as serious. Note that "may" becomes very
>>strong in the negative: "may not" is a stronger injunction than
>>"shall not", just short of "must not".
>>
>>"Shall" is a stronger injunction than "should", and "may not" is at
>>least as strong an injunction as "shall".
>>
>>Seems to me pretty clear that explaining your agreements takes
>>precedence over avoiding giving UI.

[snip]

John Probst:

[snip]

>I am of the opinion that a rigorous parsing of the shall, shall not,
>must, must not, may, may not etc in the relevant laws leads to the
>interpretation to which most of us adhere; whereas Herman seems to
>think not. After 10 years of this amiable contretemps I have no
>intention of rejoining it, but any resolution of the deWael school
>will only be achieved through this rigorous grammatical route. I think
>it's demeaning to Herman and any poster who just tries to howl him
>down. It ain't as clear as that.
>
>Herman!  I'm hereby claiming a deWael School merit point for
>supporting you while simultaneously telling you you're a bluthering
>idiot!

Richard Hills:

Herman! I am also claiming a De Wael School merit point for stating
that Ed and John have proposed an irrelevant blwddur-ing argument.

As the Preface / Scope explains, it is an infraction to violate any
"may not" and/or "shall" and/or "should" Laws.  Rather, the varying
strengths of the injunctions merely reflect the varying likelihoods of
whether procedural penalties are merited.  So, just as one cannot be a
little bit pregnant, therefore one cannot argue that the Majority
School is a little bit illegal, compared to the De Wael School being
much more illegal.

:-)


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm