On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:12 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> Now, does R1728 base the time of a future event upon the time of >> another event? Arguably, yes. When you announce your intent to >> perform a dependent action (the "other event"), we may say that the >> time limit to perform that action (the "future event") is based on the >> time the intent was announced. (It could be argued that there is in >> fact no "time limit" created here since the person announcing the >> intent is not required to perform the action at all, but this is a >> shaky reading at best and won't be considered for the purposes of this >> ruling.) In this case, the time limit would be 14 days after 28 Dec., >> or 11 Jan., which falls outside the Holiday. >> >> I judge CFJ 2330 FALSE. > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement. I agree with Judge > Wooble's arguments so far, but don't think they are arguments for or > against a judgement of FALSE, because discussions about whether intents > create a deadline for resolution and/or objection are independent of > discussions about whether resolutions create a deadline for intentions, > which is a point that the judgement doesn't appear to consider at all. > (See the recent discussions between me and Goethe as to how to resolve > this point; I think the resolutions which lead to FALSE are probably > more plausible than the resolutions which lead to TRUE, although none > are entirely satisfactory, but I would have expected the point to at > least have been considered.)
The fact that e talked about the time limit for the action starting with the intent (to me) shows that even though the dependent action rule is written backwards, it is not legally meaningful to talk about the time limit for a prior event beginning with a future event - that's too nonsensical to really consider. By the way, in just reading about error ratings on concurring opinions, I can't tell if 1 is supposed to be good and 99 bad or vice versa? -Goethe
