[blml] Correction of a revoke

[Jerry Fusselman]

> +=+ It is an interesting example. However the law is what it is. It
> does not regard failure to collect the tricks artificially transferred as
> being 'damage'.  In respect of Law 64 the only matter raised with
> the DSC was with regard to 64B2. In the subcommittee this question
> from an NBO was discussed at length and the final outcome you see.
> No-one, be it from within or from without the DSC, expressed a
> desire that we review Law 64B4 or Law 64B5.  Since this law has
> remained the same since 1973 (and in the 1963 Code listed what is
> now 64B5 but not 64B4) it is conceivable that Directors, NBOs and
> international bodies are comfortable with it the way it is.
>                                                ~ Grattan ~   +=+
>

After someone carefully points out an inconsistency in something, I
never really understood the counterargument that the authorities are
comfortable with the status quo.   Instead, I would like to see what
these authorities can come up with when they rethink the status quo
after understanding the inconsistency.  For example, can they show
there is actually no inconsistency?  Or can they give a good reason
why not to care?  Or maybe, on reflection, they agree and want to fix
it.

Yes, we know that the law is what it is.  Konrad is trying to make a
contribution for better laws in the future.

Jerry Fusselman