On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I withdraw my support for REASSIGN, and intend (with the support of
> Goethe and Wooble) to OVERRULE with the following replacement
> judgement:
>
> {{{
> 1) It being entirely within the power of the initiator of CFJ 1932 to
> resolve the alleged inequity in that case, e SHALL make a reasonable
> effort to do so within a timely fashion.
>
> 2) This is a public contract and a pledge whose sole member is root.
>
> 3) root SHALL as soon as possible amend the original judgement of
> CFJ 1932 by replacing "168 hours" in clause 4 with this text:
>
> 168 hours and has fulfilled eir clause 6 obligation (if any).
>
> and by replacing the entirety of clause 6 with this text:
>
> 6) Each contestant who has received a positive number of points
> as required by this contest SHALL as soon as possible destroy
> that number of points in eir possession.
>
> and by removing clause 7.
> }}}
What makes this more equitable than the original?
-root
