[blml] re claim

[Herman De Wael]

Brian wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:23:31 -0000
> <gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>>           In my opinion, past statements of principle by the 
>> WBFLC continue to apply unless incompatible with law;
> 
> So what you're saying, Grattan, if I may rephrase it, is that any
> entity or individual wanting to accurately determine the current
> understanding of any law must attempt to access all WBFLC minutes,
> right back to the inception of the WBFLC, just in case there is a
> "statement of principle" that is still in force, i.e. one that has not
> been voided by becoming "incompatible with law". 
> 

Yes Brian, that is what you need to do.
There is a lot you need to know, other than the laws themselves. That 
is what a course in directing is for.

The current debate is, IMHO, over the top.
The laws are clear, again IMHO.
A claim and a concession go hand-in-hand, and there is no way to have 
one without the other.
That should follow from the laws, but there are idiots who think 
otherwise.
The 2001 statement by the WBF was merely to say, very politely, that 
those who think otherwise, are wrong (and idiots).

That statement is not needed to continue to understand the laws as 
written. Since those laws are basically unchanged, there is no need to 
add in the lawbook "and those that think otherwise are idiots".

I apologize to anyone who may find himself included in a category of 
idiots. I do not think you are an idiot, merely misguided.

> If that is the case, then may I suggest that the game would best be
> served by having the next FLB make no modifications to the Laws
> whatsoever, but rather be used to get everything up to date so that
> someone reading TFLB may be certain that what they are reading
> accurately reflects the laws, at least at the date of publication, and
> that all WBFLC minutes published prior to that date may be safely
> disregarded? 
> 
> 
> Brian. 
> 
> 


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html