How many blocks can be attached to the outhaul clam cleat?

Discussion in 'Laser Class Politics' started by drLaser, Mar 17, 2004.

  1. drLaser

    drLaser Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    RELATED RULES:

    3(f)iii. Additional purchases may be obtained by forming rope loops in the line or adding “Optional” blocks to the line, and/or using the outhaul fairlead, the outhaul clam cleat, the boom, the mast or gooseneck fitting.

    3(f)iv. An “Optional” block may be attached to the clew of the sail, or to a quick release system, or be part of a quick release system.

    3(f)v. An “Optional” block may be tied (using an additional line to those noted in 3.f.i) at the mast/gooseneck junction (maximum 100 mm from centre of gooseneck bolt) or shackled to the gooseneck fitting. (The gooseneck may be inverted.)

    3(f)viii(a) When led to the deck, an “Optional” single block shall be tied (using an additional line to those noted in 3.f.i or the same line as referred to in 3.f.v.) at the mast/gooseneck junction, (maximum 100 mm from centre of gooseneck bolt) or shackled to the gooseneck.

    Interpretation 8:
    [Title] Optional Block attached to the outhaul clam cleat
    [Relates to] Rule 3 (f) iii
    [Interpretation text] An optional block is permitted to be attached to the outhaul clam cleat.

    Note: Terms in square brackets above were added by this subscriber.


    DISCUSSION

    Rule 3(f)iii specifies where turning points may be included in the outhaul system. It is noteworthy that this general rule does NOT specify any limits on how many "Optional" blocks can be attached where.

    Rules 3(f)iv, v and viii are ADDITIONS to this general rule. These three rules explicitly specify HOW MANY blocks may (or shall) be attached at specific points. In these rules, "an optional block" specifically means ONE optional block.

    However, the rest of the 2003 Interpretations are full of cases where "a" or "an" is used as an indefinite article, without implying a specific number. See Interpreation 2 (defining how blocks can be "attached") where the term "an optional block" definitely does not mean ONE optional block.


    In this context, and given our common experience that the World Council and the ILCA Measurer are not very much adept at putting into writing what they mean... I wonder why they have seen fit to note to us that Interpretation 8 is an "interpretation of Rule 3(f)iii" (or that it relates to it).

    Do they mean that Rule 3(f)iii is now changed into (change shown in CAPS):
    "Additional purchases may be obtained by forming rope loops in the line or adding “Optional” blocks to the line AND THE OUTHAUL CLAM CLEAT, and/or using the outhaul fairlead, the outhaul clam cleat, the boom, the mast or gooseneck fitting"???

    If so, this would not limit the number of blocks attached to the calm cleat.

    If that was not their intent, why did they not tell us that Interpretation 8 was an interpretation of Rule 3(f)iv, instead?? After all, if they did, then Rule 3(f)iv would become:
    "An 'Optional' block may be attached to THE OUTHAUL CLAM CLEAT, AND/OR to the clew of the sail, or to a quick release system, or be part of a quick release system"

    which would express that at most one block can be attached to the clam cleat much more clearly.

    But they didn't! They insist that this interpretation interprets (or relates to) Rule 3(f)iii.

    So, I have doubts about whether the terminology "An optional block is permitted" in Interpretation 8 means "AT MOST ONE OPTIONAL BLOCK IS PERMITTED".


    CAN WE BELIEVE WHAT WE READ?

    Is ILCA generally adept at noting all the Rules their Interpretations relate to? No. In fact, Interpretation 4 is noted to relate to "Rule 3 (e) and (f)", while in fact it also relates to Rule 3(b)viii(d). Similarly, Interpretation 9 is noted to relate to " Rule 3 (f)iii and v", while in fact it relates to Rules 3 (f)v and viii.

    So, what we read in the Interpretations is not that reliable. ILCA could have just have made an error in specifying the rule this interpretation relates to.

    But is there a logical (safety) reason why the World Council may have really intended to limit the number of blocks attached to the clam cleat to just one? Not really:

    With the new rules, the loads on the clam cleat can be greatly reduced compared to the old ways of rigging. If you still use an outhaul cleated on the boom, by using an efficient purchase system aft the clam cleat, the shear force on the clam cleat can now be reduced to 1/4 or 1/6 of the old forces. If you use a deck-cleated system, and if you attach a block to the clam cleat, the shear forces are similarly 1/2 to 1/4 of what they used to be. So, why wouldn't ILCA allow more than one block to be attached to the mid-boom clam cleat?


    REQUEST

    As a Laser sailor who always defended following the TEXT of the rules rather than their intent, I am confused here.

    I would appreciate any comments related to what ILCA means by Interpretation 8.

    Obviously, I have (undisclosed) reasons to consider using a system with two blocks attached to the clam cleat - with lower total loads on the clam cleat than with the old ways of rigging.

    IMHO, the crux of such problems has always been ILCA's interest in making new rules (under the guise of "issuing interpretations") without incorporating them into the format and language of the existing rules. I also would wish an end to that.

    Best regards,

    Shevy Gunter
    Member, ILCA-NA
     
  2. LooserLu

    LooserLu LooserLu

    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Hi Shevy
    as you know, as Lasercruiser, I´m on the chicken-stairway on the lowest-steep, I can only give you my personal opinion (please remember I have to translate all of the parts rules first exact in German-language and than my opinion back in English/American-language for runaways....):

    > I would appreciate any comments related to what ILCA means by
    > Interpretation 8.

    Interpretation 8 "An optional bolck..." means (to me) that I can use 1 block - obtained by any suplier, with 1 or 2 sheaves - that "IS" allowed to put on the Outhaul clamcleat.

    In Interpretation No. 8, the plural is not used for verb "is". So the aliens from the law-making-planet mean the singular - this is: ONE (in my opinion).


    Please remember, that these law-giving-persons use sometimes the exact definition (a single block) and sometimes they use "a block" in Rule 3(f) (and other places). This is not correct/exact written for me, when I see this together with the Interpretations of Nov 2003 and rule-interpretations that are shown in rule 3(a)and 3(b).

    Be sure that rule 3(f)-i is over all the most important rule part (and there to this discussion-point: "6 Turning Points"). The rest is: making special explanaitions and special allowes.

    Shevy, are you sure, about the juristical correct definition in rules of a law for "can" "may" "shall" .... "have to / must"?
    Here, on planet Germany, we have quite very exact explanaitions for them (I can say this to you as individuum, that has more than 10 years professional experiance in my job with that stuff ...). This is not told to make you angry about me, but only to think about while reading our "loved" rules...

    to be continued ... later on

    Bye-Bye
    LooserLo
     
  3. drLaser

    drLaser Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi, Ludwig,

    I'm not convinced!

    In the English language, the use of the singular form of any verb may imply either of:
    - a singular subject (e.g. "I bought a car"),
    - a whole population of similar subjects (e.g. "a senator must be honest").
    That's in fact why "a" and "an" are called "INDEFINITE articles" in English grammar. They are "indefinite" in the sense that they refer to "ANY" of the items referred to. So, the use of "a" or "is" itself is not conclusive evidence.

    Regarding some of your other comments:
    > sometimes the exact definition ("a single block") and sometimes
    > they use "a block"

    Here, the difference is intentional and clear. "Single block" is nautical terminology, and it restricts the block to have a single sheave. ("A single block" is not an emphasis implying "only one block".) This was emphasized in Interpretation 3. "A block", on the other hand, is ANY type of block (subject to any other restrictions stated elsewhere in the Rules.)

    > juristical correct definition in rules of a law for "can", "may", "shall" ....
    > "have to / must"?

    In English, "shall", "has to" and "must" are all considered equivalent. The legal language prefers using "shall" only. There is a distinction betwen "can" (which implies "ability") and "may" (which implies "permission"), but it is occasionally overlooked (e.g. a student asking a teacher "Can I go to the bathroom?")

    If you do a search for "can" in the Rules, you can see that the use of "can" in 3(f)vii
    actually means "may". All other usages of "can" (or "cannot", as well as of "may" or "may not" and "shall" or "shall not") in the Rules are appropriate and correct. "Must" or "has to" are not used in our Rules at all.

    -----------------------------------------


    There is much more involved here than just "language". In the context of my specific question, I worry that Interpretation 8, if interpreted to allow AT MOST ONE BLOCK, contradicts other existing rules or common practices!!!

    The crux of the problem is that:
    1) 2001 Rules allow attaching (many) blocks anywhere on a contol line,
    2) 2001 Rules fail to recognize the implications of moving from the "one continuous length of uniform diameter" control line systems (as in the old 1996 Rules) to multiple control line systems. The failure is in continuing to regulate the attachment point and path of something that's inadvertanetly referred to as "the control line".

    For example, by the text of Rule 3(e)ii, ALL existing new cunningham systems are illegal (including all the Builder-supplied ones), since in no new system does ONE ("the") control line satisfy all the requirements of 3(e)ii. Similarly, by the text of Rule 3(f)ii, ALL existing outhaul systems are illegal (including all the Builder-supplied ones), since in no system does ONE control line satisfy all the requirements of 3(f)ii. (These two rules are replicated at the bottom for easy reference.)

    As a result, the Laser sailor is left to interpret these two rules in "the most logical way". And the common practice has been to presume that in both 3(e)ii and 3(f)ii, the separate restrictions on WHERE "the control line" can be attached and its PATH apply to ANY ONE of the control lines in a system!

    Example 1: We just interpret 3(e)ii as: "ONE control line shall pass at least once through the sail tack cringle" and "ONE control line shall pass (only once) through the deck fairlead and the clam cleat."

    Example 2: We just read 3(f)ii as: "ONE of the outhaul control lines shall be tied to either the end of the boom, the outhaul fairlead, the sail, or a quick release system, and shall pass at least once through the boom outhaul fairlead."

    As in Example 2 above, if the Rules govern the attachment point of only one control line in a control system, then the attachment point of other control lines in that system are left unregulated. [IN FACT, the European Builder's own outhaul rig as well as the drLaser and Rooster Sailing systems have an outhaul control line tied to the boom clam cleat, a point not explicitly allowed in 3(f)ii for "the" control line.]

    This is where (1) and (2) above point to a serious problem! If you can attach any number of blocks to a line, and if you can attach that line anywhere, then obviously you can attach any number of blocks anywhere (subject to all other regulatory contitions).

    So, in the case of my question, since 2001, we WERE allowed to attach one or two (or three) blocks to the boom clam cleat. Is Interpretation 8 now saying "NO, YOU CAN NOW ATTACH AT MOST ONE BLOCK!", or does it say "(instead of tying the blocks to a line and tying the line to the clam cleat), YOU CAN NOW ATTACH ONE BLOCK DIRECTLY TO THE CLAM CLEAT BRIDGE" ?????????????

    Is Interpretation 8 giving us more? Or is it taking away our rights?

    Is the emphasis in Interpretation 8 on the word "an", or is it on "permitted to"?

    Shevy

    -----------------
    REFERENCES:
    3(e)ii. The cunningham control line shall be securely tied to any of the mast, gooseneck, mast tang, the swivel, the shackle that may be used to attach the vang cleat block or the swivel to the mast tang, or the cunningham attachment point on a “Builder Supplied” vang cleating fitting, and shall pass at least once through the sail tack cringle before passing only once through the deck fairlead and the clam cleat.

    3(f)ii. The outhaul control line shall be tied to either the end of the boom, the outhaul fairlead, the sail, or a quick release system, and shall pass at least once through the boom outhaul fairlead.
     
  4. LooserLu

    LooserLu LooserLu

    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Hi,
    The following, I wrote before Shevy made his comennt above so it is related to my first comend and to Shevy´s 1st words:

    Shevy wrote:
    >… See Interpreation 2 >(defining how blocks can be "attached") where the term "an
    >optional block" definitely does not mean ONE optional block.

    In my opinion:
    Interpretation No. 2 is a good example for getting misunderstood the objective intention of the explanation No. 2 actual want us to give. I think no one else could dissect the problem of the class-rules in general (shown by this Interpretation No. 2) better as you did, Shevy.

    What shall I say about all the other foreign sailors (like me) that are not able to understand the English language quite good enough to be able of really understanding what the rules mean when I see this together with the complexness of the specific questions to the rule-interpretation of sailors (like you, Shevy) which have English respectively American as their native language.
    In this point, I don’t think about me, who's profession it is, to interpret (administration and technical) rules the whole long day on my job as engineer. I think about all the young sailors which have not English/American as their native language and do not have any jurisprudence experience in this and must try to handle with the Laserclassrules correct and exact.

    This classrules have to get in a new form completely, please made by persons with real jurisprudence experience and are simultaneous Laser-sailors! In the moment The Lasaer-classrules look more like a complex riddle than a helpful manual to the help-searching sailor of a famous 1-design-sailingboat-class, I´m afraid.

    Someone who was one of the best physicists this world had ever seen said: "A well done solution is mostly easy, but an easy solution is not every time a well done solution…."

    Is a classrule-article, for instance rule 3(f), that need 6+3 complicated exceptions to set the way how to build the outhaul system ("new and old") in a ONE-design way easy or well done?
    I will not forget that of course it is needed before, to keep in mind rule 3(a) (5-6 explanations) 3(a) (14 explanations) to "understand" rule 3(f) only a little bit like you are able to, Shevy.

    In the classrules too often "shall" and "may" is used. Very, very worse I certify.
    In Germany: "may"="can": that means nothing (you can do it or not, as you like)
    "shall " : do it as rule describe it, but exception is allowed if the exception is good
    reasonable.
    "must / have to": do it exactly as rule describe it, no exceptions are allowed.
    I don´t know if this is in other countries the same.

    A good rule set definitions in the active way: "The New-Outhaul-System consists of two control lines …."
    [Then there is to show exact pictures how to put the control-lines to be rigged. Only 1 solution is allowed.]
    Of course for the old Outhaul they have to set 1 possibility in the same way, as I tried to explain before - but only for training and cruising and little club-regatta's. For official-regatta's the 1design-thought takes strong: only the new system is allowed. In this way they should bring it on.

    The Class-Rule-Interpretations-papersheet is not more ore less than a commentary – as you can find them in big books to any important law. "Right is what the judge says" that is the only you can believe in, we say in our language. Now I ask you, who's the judge here, when the law that is to be used is most incorrect.
    Shevy, I'm also wondering about this interpretations especially the column in the meddle of the table. This column is not correct usable at all, is my opinion, too. But however, who of the officials gets an interest on. In my experience: none.

    By the way: The more or less exact translation of the Laserclassrules in German language is older than 10 years I think. Guess why, Shevy… (I know, that you know who can tell the answers to this and I quite imagine the reasons for that they are so old…..I think, you too :))
    Chiao
    Looser Lu
     
  5. LooserLu

    LooserLu LooserLu

    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Hi,

    Shevy, now I had translated and read your reply "#3".

    Thank you for your little lesson in English, Shevy (my last was in 1981...). It was very helpful to understand your question now.

    Ok, now I agree, that is not even really clear that only 1 block can be attached to the outhaul clam cleat.

    Shevy, do you remember you told me in 1 Email "life is not simple"? And this is another good example to your words, I think. :)

    Interpretation No. 8 is something else than exact - it let the exact answer open. This is my opinion now.

    Shevy, you ask:
    >Is Interpretation 8 giving us more? Or is it taking away our rights?

    >Is the emphasis in Interpretation 8 on the word "an", or is it on "permitted
    to"?

    Really, this are the questions here!

    Shevy, I´m not "an official", you know this, but I stay to my words "right is what the judge says".

    I hope, "an official" can tell us here on this Forum what right is, please.
    Is there "an official" who reads at TLF?

    For me, Shevy, I like to find meanwhile of course an own answer - together with your (i mean here: all who are interested in) help, please.

    So in this way I have a first question that is important (I think) (to me) to get on the right way to an(y) answer that is usable:

    Is it true that rule 3(f) i is the "main"rule and the others in 3(f) are related explanations/exceptions or are all equal in 3(f)?

    Bye-bye
    LooserLu
     
  6. drLaser

    drLaser Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    > Is there "an official" who reads at TLF?

    Yes! There is!

    > Is it true that rule 3(f) i is the "main"rule and the others in 3(f)
    > are related explanations/exceptions, or are all equal in 3(f)?

    All rules are equal! No rules are more equal than others.

    3(f) could be written as one long paragraph. It is divided into sentences for ease of reference and readability.

    > In Germany: "may"="can":
    > that means nothing (you can do it or not, as you like)

    "That means NOTHING", Ludwig says. That is, why should a rule state what you CAN do? Why should a city ordinance say "Citizens may take their pets to city parks"?

    The reason is the "FUNDAMENTAL RULE" of the Laser Class.

    Compared to communities where civil and human rights of the citizens are supreme and inherent - unless taken away by public laws or some other public contract, a one-design racing community is like a fascist state: you can't do anything unless you are told by the State that you can do it.

    The "Fundamental Rule" states "No addition or alteration may be made to the hull form, construction, equipment, type of equipment, placing of equipment, fittings, type of fittings, placing of fittings, spars, sail and battens as supplied by the builder except when such an alteration or change is specifically authorised by Parts 2 or 3 of these Rules."


    The problem is that the 2001 Rules and the 2003 Interpretations (because they were plagued with errors, inconsistencies, conflicts, and ambiguities) have resulted in a severe loss of "power" and enforceability of this Fundamental Rule. E.g., 3(b)viii(c) says "Optional cam cleats shall have fixing hole centres of 27 mm" while half of the world is racing today with clam cleats with 28 mm fixing hole centers, in spite of the Fundamental Rule.

    And that's a loss for the whole Class.

    > Only 1 solution is [should be] allowed.

    Since 1971, the Laser Class has always allowed for creativity in rig design and development within the confines of its strict rules. What suits a sailor does not suit all others. The prerequisite for the 2001 Rules was that they allow for sufficient flexibility and not render the old rigging system (and 150,000 hulls) obsolete.

    The problem is not the "flexibility" per se. The problem is the incapacity of the World Council to put into writing exactly what they mean, and their insistence on trying to do that within the confines of the group called "The World Council" - be they all well meaning and talented individuals or not - without involving the general ILCA membership.

    IF the World Council had submitted the draft of the 2003 Interpretations for the review of the Membership first, these problems would have been raised.

    IF the World Council had submitted the draft of the 2001 Rules for the review of the Membership first, these problems would have been noted.

    They didn't, in spite of the ILCA Constitution that says they must! We are all paying the penalty now. Well, not all of us. Only those of us who are aware. And it's the general lack of awareness of the Membership that allows that World Council to ride before the storm, avoiding the lee shore.


    So, how many blocks can be attached to the outhaul clam cleat -- directly, or by a line, or by a shackle, etc.?

    Shevy Gunter
    Member, ILCA NA
     
  7. LooserLu

    LooserLu LooserLu

    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Re: How many blocks can be attached to the outhaul clam cleat? my last reply to this)

    Hi

    I asked
    >Is it true that rule 3(f) i is the "main"rule and the others in 3(f) are related
    >explanations/exceptions or are all equal in 3(f)?

    Reason: If 3(f) i is something like a "main"rule than there is, on my opinion, a little chance to give 1 usable answer to your question. The solution lies perhaps in the words "a maximum 6 turning points".

    But unfortunately Shevy replied: "All rules are equal…."

    Then my answer (my personal opinion) is unfortunately very short:

    No correct answer* (with telling a definite number of allowed single/double blocks) to your question in my opinion is possible (for me).
    [*: based on the Laserclassrules in relationship with the Interpretations (that now seems to me, when I read behind your words, are part of the law and not as I first supposed only a commentary)]

    Reason: As I already wrote in one reply (#4) before: "… the law (I mean here :L-c-rules added with the Interpretations) that is to be used, is most incorrect" - because of the ambiguous places in the articles that are in my opinion without any logical doubt recognizable, as you, Shevy, precise described it before.
    A "main"rule, if in exsistance, beats other lower standing exception/explanation-rules - especially when there are ambiguous places in the lower standing exceptions/explanations.
    Unfortunately this is not the case here.

    So there could be no [independent/fair] judge (In one club the measurer will decide so – in another place another measurer decides in another way and so on - with the protest-courts is the same)! Only "the high supreme court" can "say" (I mean: "write in the law" or get the parliament to make a new-correct!-law) what correct is. So long, we have to wait….get downstairs and boxing our sandbag and scream: Grrrr… :-(] As I do

    Until there is no correct classrule, ME IN PERSON, I do not sail any regatta in future (not even the nice little official regatta at our tiny little lake Aasee in autumn, not just even a training regatta on lake Duemmer, Shevy) I only stay as a somedays-in-the-year Lasercruiser!!!!!
    I this the advertising, our quiet at TLF reading and not telling us how it goes, Officials living on their own planet on Gallaxie must be far away prefer to have???.

    _____________________________________________________

    Some words, Shevy, to the last replys:


    >> sometimes the exact definition ("a single block") and sometimes
    >> they use "a block"
    >
    >Here, the difference is intentional and clear. "Single block" is nautical terminology, and >it restricts the block to have a single sheave. ("A single block" is not an emphasis >implying "only one block".) This was emphasized in Interpretation 3. "A block", on the >other hand, is ANY type of block (subject to any other restrictions stated elsewhere in >the Rules.)

    Shevy, I know what a block is, I know what a single block is and I know what a double block is…I´m not stupid. You know that. :)

    My meaning was: [>"A block", on the other hand, is ANY type of block (subject to any other restrictions stated elsewhere in the Rules.)] = {>> they use "a block"}

    Good formulated articles of a law use precise words.

    Example (this is very difficult for me to write):

    They use " "Optional block" in the 3(f) text sometimes and do not exact fix what they mean: a "single" block" or a "double" block or something else…. (Here I not mean the description in 3(a) / 3(b) iv/v)

    Look at 3(f)iv and 3(f)v: "An "Optional" block…" and then look at 3(f)viii (a) or (b): "…, an "Optional" SINGLE block…"

    Is it clearer what the rulemakers mean with the formulation of "block" in 3(f)iv / 3(f)v or in 3(f)viii (a) / (b)?!!!!

    Another example: look at the Interpretation No 2: "… for an optional block or…."
    Why do they not write it precise! `"Optional" SINGLE block´ or `"Optional" DOUBLE block´ when we see in the direct next Interpretationnumber No 3 the definition for what the meaning of the single/double block is!!


    To that with "a" and "an":
    Is it easier to other foreign sailors like me to make rules with formulations "a" or "an" and we foreigners have to read twice or more only to get it right understood?
    For example to this, read the replies before: In solution the reader find in minimum 2 ways to interpret the Interpretation No. 8: 1st in the way "on the surface" of my 1st reply and 2nd in the way Shevy really was meaning.

    1 Picture can tell more than 20 complicated explanations! They already use photos and immediately it was clear what sort of basic Deck Block Fitting is allowed and that the money I spend to a not "Builder Supplied" Fitting was lost money… (I had to have earlier a look at the classrules Fundanental Rule plus rule 3(b) vii.)

    To that "may", "shall", "must" / "has to":
    When the English/American/Australian-Language for the rules does not have such descriptions like we in German jurisprudential affairs, then, as I already said: Why not make a good described rule that use the grammatical "active"? Is this to heavy to do for the official-lawmakers? I will hope not, please!!

    Bye-Bye and have all a good start in the weekend
     
  8. drLaser

    drLaser Member

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Sorry for the late response, Ludwig.

    You wrote:
    > So there could be no [independent/fair] judge

    It's slightly worse than that. LOCAL judges ("District Measurers") are not even ALLOWED to interpret! A District Measurer has the authority to RULE ON all questions and challenges relating to the Rules and Interpretations of the Chief Measurer, but he can't issue (OFFER) an Interpretation of the Rule or of the Interpretation himself!!! (See ILCA Constitution, 8(6).)

    Any interpretation by a District Measurer must be first approved by the Chief Measurer. Which means that in practice, clearing the confusion here is the job of the World Council.

    > I do not sail any regatta in future

    SAIL! Sail and RACE! If you don't challenge the status quo, how will it change for the better?

    > the money I spend on a not "Builder Supplied" Fitting was lost money…

    Few people realize that writing rules that increase the available rigging alternatives is a huge responsibility.

    > Why not make a good described rule that use the grammatical "active"?

    As I noted, that's because of the "Fundamental Rule".

    I believe in the "Fundamental Rule." I find the fault in the lack of ability to exactly express what is allowed.

    It would be interesting to determine whether the ILCA Rules would be more or less complex if written in the "active" mode (using "must" and "may not")... The "must" part is easy. The problem is with the "may not" part. No one person has sufficient imagination to list all the things that are possible but may not be done. Thus the Fundamental Rule simply says, "If we don't allow it explicitly, then you may not do it."

    Shevy

    PS. Sorry to raise the question about the meaning of "OR" to ILCA - which may have caused more frustration for you, Ludwig. (But that's a different thread.)
     

Share This Page