View Single Post
Old 10-08-2019, 03:24 PM   #3714
Senior Member
FrostWurm's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,901
To repeat (and in fairness), they didnít approve anything. They simply didnít disapprove. The absence of disapproval is not approval.
Your attempt to use semantics to drive your point is amusing, but it would not stand a day in a court of law.

There is no evidence to suggest that there can a be third state, one in which the subject is neither approved nor disapproved. Indeed, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the bond offerings, as they currently exist, have neither been approved nor disapproved. You may be in line with the literal letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit of the law, which holds just as much, if not more interpretive weight.

This is especially so if a body has been specifically charged with the duty of disapproving matters it finds objectionable. It goes without saying that the lack of disapproval has an implicit meaning of permissibility. I would be most shocked if MAS were to come out and state categorically that they did not approve the bond offerings.

One of the instances where your argument might be plausible, is if the MAS was grossly negligent to the point where they did not even have enough information to decide whether to disapprove. This might well be the case, though I find the odds of that happening to be rather small.

The only other instance, is if there is a different meaning to the word disapprove as interpreted by MAS. Perhaps what MAS looks out for is not the same as us. Maybe they are more procedural, rather than substantial?
FrostWurm is offline   Reply With Quote