Only...I don't think that was what the OP was referring to.
If you read the whole thread, though, that's what we were talking about at that point.
This is actually what Zeo12 was talking about.
It would seem so, but later he clarified on what he was talking about:
...I went against a team that did this last year. They said: "Significantly change policy toward India [=] "[H]aving or likely to have influence or effect to undergo a modification of a definite course or method of action in relation to something or someone in South Asia[.]"
Then I came in and clarified:
I see nothing wrong with this. You're taking definitions for the words separately (because that is how the resolution uses them) and then putting them together for context. It's like giving the definitions, and then an alalysis: "Judge, this is, in essence, saying that the resolution is that 'The United States Federal Government should modify its definite course of action in relations to a country in South Asia in a way that is likely to have effect.'"
This is pretty cool, but I've never seen a need for it.
I'm still waiting for Zeo12 to tell me that this is not
what he was talking about, but until then...
In addition, I believe that ggcouture's post was actually in response to mine
, not the OP. He can correct me if I'm wrong.