On Jan 14, 2008 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I really should have added the issue of burden of proof to the judgement. > Reading eir arguments that led that way, I would assign the arguments an > "error rating" of 20-40% (as e made the arguments for "non-nomicness" but > didn't finalize the conclusion). Enough for a concurring opinion perhaps, > or even a remand or Reassign. I have no problem with choosing REASSIGN > over REMAND based on the bribery. But NOT enough for a criminal finding > of bad faith in the arguments themselves beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not enough for a concurring opinion, in my mind. Even if he had ultimately decided on the nomicness of Steve Wallace, e did not make any argument that "Steve Wallace is not a nomic" implies that the matter is irrelevant, and I remain unconvinced that it does. By analogy, if the CFJ were "root is not permitted to spend VCs", and it turned out upon investigation that there was nothing prohibiting me from spending VCs, would that be IRRELEVANT as well? I don't think that it would, and I don't see why it would be different in CFJ 1860. -root
