john g marr wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Laurence Creider wrote:
> ... [text deleted] ...
>>  The problem I find with your interpretation is that you have read 
>> your assumptions into the text.
>   We have both done that (e.g., (a) your comments that 0.14 is not to 
> be taken literally and (b) 22.3A "80%", "2)", parens. is to be based 
> upon example rather than text, and my comment that (c) 22.3A introd. 
> "2)", parens. defines the role of theses).
>  Let's resolve these dilemmas as follows:
>   (1) Take 0.14 literally;
>   (2) Take 22.3A "80%", "2)", parens. at face-value [i.e., what is its 
> meaning with no example at all?];
>   (3) Explain why the parenthetical remark in 22.3A introd. "2)" was 
> written [e.g., what other clause requires it as clarification?].
Concerning point number '3' above:

Obviously, the rules and interpretations need clarification.  But I 
don't believe the presence of an explicit (although ambiguous) sentence 
concerning theses in 22.3A means that the rulemakers intended that we 
*not* take into account theses everywhere else.  We just don't know what 
they intended.

I would like to have a rule that excepts theses from establishing the 
most common form of the name, but neither such a rule nor such an 
interpretation exists right now.


*Stanley Elswick*

*NOAA Central Library*

1315 East-West Highway, 2nd Floor

Silver Spring MD 20910

Voice: (301) 713-2607 ext. 138

Fax:  (301) 713-4599

/The opinions that I express in this email do not necessarily reflect 
the views of the U.S. Government./