On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, comex wrote: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Aaron Goldfein <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Was it intentional that this is EXACTLY 30 days (to the minute) from the >> time you deregistered? I CFJ, II=2 on the following sentence. Wooble is a >> player. I ask that the judge consider not only eir odd sentence structure of >> registration, but the timing of events. Additionally, e should strive to >> establish some sort of timing precedent. > > Not just to the minute: the messages are only one second apart (the > registration message is a second later, which is too bad; it would be > more interesting if the headers couldn't tell which arrived at an > earlier time).
Not that interesting. If the two messages are exact endpoints of a 30-day time period, then neither message is "within" the R869 30-day limit and so registration is not prohibited. It might be more interesting if the rule read "cannot register until 30 days have passed." "Within" to me implies (t1,t2) while "have passed" could be (t1,t2]. -G.
