Not at all. On Jun 19, 2014 1:56 PM, "Kerim Aydin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Sean Hunt wrote: > > Jonatan Kilhamn <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 19 June 2014 03:51, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > The crux of the matter in CFJ 3407 is whether or not (the > purported) Rule > > > 2426 is a mechanism for judicial determinations, and is hence > prevented from > > > being enacted by (2) in the last paragraph of Rule 217. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > Accordingly the Court finds that Rule 217 was not engaged in the > enactment > > > of Rule 2426, and therefore assigns to CFJ 3407 a judgment of > FALSE. > > > > > > -R. H. scshunt, Prime Minister > > > > Don't you mean 3413? > > > > > 3413 (Tiger) "Rule 2426 (Cards) exists." > > > Assigned to scshunt. > > > > And if you do, don't you mean TRUE? > > > > - Tiger, caller > > > > > > Yes on both counts, fortunately the Arbitor's mistake canceled my own. > > I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3413 per my arguments. > > Do you mind if I s/3407/3413/ when I put your arguments in database (when > database exists)? > > > >
