On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, comex wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Let's make this official, as I haven't seen any further discussion on this >> point in the past two days. >> >> With the consent of the rest of the appeal panel in CFJ 1966c, I intend to >> cause the panel to rule OVERRULE with a new judgment of FALSE. Goethe's >> gratuitous arguments in the original CFJ are valid; mucking with the ruleset >> by fiat is highly against Agoran practice. Please, if you're going to >> change rules by fiat, first conduct a scam that changes the rules to >> explicitly give you that power. > > Just because the rules ought not to be changeable by fiat doesn't mean > they aren't, and although I would not mind a judgement of FALSE with a > few good solid convincing arguments, OscarMeyr's judgement does not > contain any, even if e said please. OscarMeyr, if you OVERRULE this, > I will initiate a new CFJ on the same statement, and if it turns out > TRUE for any reason, I will initiate a Rule 911 case against you for > making this judgement. > > Specifically, the gratutious arguments that you cite are basically to > the effect that it's ambiguous, and Goethe later said > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ps. FWIW, despite my earlier posts, the "Rules != Contract" camp have >> convinced me that the R101 preamble is broken in that "binding agreements" >> no longer refer to the rules, so for my part it's the CAN question that's >> the big debate. > > I repeat, I (seriously this time) will accept a judgement of FALSE, > but I kind of dislike the sort of judgement that considers the case as > obviously FALSE as previous judges have considered it obviously TRUE. > Especially when it's unappealable.
FWIW, I kinda pretty much agree with comex here. Some better gratuity to hang a hat on at the bottom of this message about "assume to exist" in R101: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2008-June/015790.html though comex's counter-riposte: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2008-June/015813.html is worth considering too. -Goethe
