==============================  CFJ 3451  ==============================

    Proposals 7773 and 7774 will have no effect if passed

========================================================================

Called by Tristan Bredeweg:                         29 Jul 2015 16:15:53
Assigned to Tiger:                                  10 Aug 2015 01:33:33

========================================================================

<CAO6HVYtwMDz0UzBgsS=X5NYGr7DonaUn2HvEybm-uTL6c76qdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Exhibit by the Warrigal:

Though if you ask me, the phrase 'Rule 2455 "How to Pend a Proposal"'
is completely unambiguous. There's absolutely no reasonable doubt as
to what the intended meaning of the phrase is, so the error
constitutes "difference in spelling" which "does not create an
ambiguity in meaning".

========================================================================

<alpine.LRH.2.01.1507291246360.10364@hymn04.u.washington.edu>
Exhibit by G.:

A CFJ found differently IIRC, but I think in that case the mis-numbering
referred accidentally to a different existing rule.
As Rulekeepor, I wholly disagree that this is a different in "spelling",
though it *may* still be clear enough depending what the precedent
says...

========================================================================

<CAHM7b2vWkM0FB76BsmCxasA_kVatOOcYBXyXNEbD+AfcsgS7Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Exhibit by Tristan Bredeweg:

It was CFJ 1625. "Where a proposal specifies a rule to amend by both number
and title, and the number and title given identify different rules, this
constitutes ambiguity that nullifies the attempted rule change."
That doesn't refer to when the other rule doesn't exist. But, the rules
say, "An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule
does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other
variation does." I think this would fall under "any other variation".

========================================================================