omd wrote: > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: >> I interpret "gamestate" as including history (at least relevant >> parts e.g. whether someone deregistered recently, and once that's >> included, I see no good reason not to include all of it), and >> ratification as implicitly deeming a legal fiction about history >> from the time of the ratified document forward. > > I intend, with two support, to file a Motion to Reconsider on the > judgements of each of CFJs 2962-64. > > This point has generated quite a bit of discussion lately, not to > mention that current precedent is that it's false; I think just > stating it as true without any justification is unreasonable.
Which precedent? Anyway, I believe my other interpretations are sufficient to lead to the assigned judgements regardless of how ratification works.
