On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, no point in rebutting this since it's already opined, but for > the record, I still strongly disagree with this line of reasoning... I > believe that it gratuitously changes what the rules say into what > they're meant to say, inferring from one mechanism not only a quite > logically separate mechanism but a plenipotentiary one - one that > would, if carried to its logical conclusion, negate the need to > actually use the rules-defined mechanism - partly in service of a > right that no longer exists, never required this interpretation to > function literally (the Golem deregistering emself), and, as shown by > the requirement to be a first-class person to initiate inquiry cases > and the precedents that I mentioned in my original arguments (3169, > 3173), was not required to function literally (someone else > deregistering it would suffice).
I see what you mean. I'm no expert, either, so maybe you're right. >From what I can tell, though, it seems more logical to AFFIRM the judge's original ruling. Maybe I'm just too used to things working the way they should. =P ~ Roujo
