(packing as I type)

Kent... you barely address my post of 9:05PM, except to restate your understanding of the 'grammar' of it. I claim that its grammar AND relevance are both subject to doubt. Those who use your stance to keep anything from BEING changed, are, as I say engaging in some complex circular reasoning that stalls even serious discussion.
   If you have no other point to make beyond asserting that "the meaning is clear, and that if I want changes, I'd better get the amendment revised", there's little more I can say.