[blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Matthias Berghaus]

Herman De Wael schrieb:
>
> Please real L20F5 again: it compels people to "avoid drawing attention 
> to partner's wrong explanation" and it states one should not indicate 
> in any manner that a mistake has been made. That last bit sounds very 
> much (to me) like "act positively to conceal that infraction".
>
> Please tell me Grattan, how else I am going to follow L20F5.
>   

He has already told you. Several times. Let me paraphrase it (again): 
accept that you follow L20F5 by explaining your system and by letting 
opps draw their own conclusion, thereby giving UI, but not doing so by 
design, but rather by necessity to comply with the rules.

> Yes, you've told me already that you are not breaking L20F5. I have 
> not agreed with that conclusion. That leaves your argument lacking in 
> foundation.

Now this is a good one. An argument lacks a foundation because you do 
not agree with it? Not that Grattan has (IMO) made any argument, he 
stated how certain laws are to be read (being, as  I  mentioned a couple 
of times, member of the body that actually made those laws). But leaving 
that aside: how can agreement (or non-agreement, for that matter) with 
an argument have anything to do with its foundation?

>  We are still on square one.
>
>