On Wed, 21 May 2008, ihope wrote: > Well, what we have here is automatic acting-on-behalf. Acting on > behalf, though not described in any rule, I think, has been around for > a while, having been deemed possible by a CFJ. I think convention is > that automatic stuff is acceptable as long as it's not difficult to > keep track of.
No, what we have here is "sending messages as if I were you". That goes beyond an action taken "on behalf", where there's no question on who the message came from. By the way, I'm not arguing strongly in this case, it would just be interesting and relevant to see if that previous judgement extends to this one, so the judge can say why or why not. -Goethe
