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

[Matthias Berghaus]

This is more or less in response to Herman`s reply to my mail, but 
keeping everything in is way to cumbersome now, so I deleted it all.

Herman, we have a judicative power (TDs, ACs) and a legislative power 
(WBF, meaning more or less the WBFLC in this case). TDs and ACs don`t 
make the rules, the WBFLC does.
 Now the official word is: If - by following L75C - you happen to 
generate UI, then (and only then) there is no infraction of law or 
propriety. They have set out correct procedure for as long as the 1997 
rules are in force. You can argue about the wording, but Grattan`s quote 
is quite clear, as _without design_ only makes sense if there is such an 
animal, whereas your interpretation would not make it possible for such 
a case t occur. (Just as an aside: Since no law is broken as per WBFLC 
comment, there can be no question of choosing something over something 
else. Following correct procedure is always OK)
 Now you and me and my landlady can agree with them or disagree with 
them, nobody cares, _because it is the law_ . Period. I happen to 
disagree strongly with the death penalty as for example in California 
(picked more or less at random because I am sure that Californa has the 
death penalty, while I am unsure with regard to others. No offence to 
California or Californians intended). Does Governor Schwarzenegger care? 
I would heavily bet against it. He has other things to worry about (yes, 
I have heard the one about the Cuban cigar...) And even if he cared? Did 
he make those laws? No, but he has to enforce them. The Californian laws 
as set down by the legislative body are in effect. He can try to make 
that body change the law, but he bound by it as long as it is in force.
We can try to make our legislative body change it (I am not sure whether 
that would be wise in this case, but I have started a new thread to find 
out), but at the moment we are bound by it.


Regards
Matthias