On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 20:24 Ørjan Johansen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Gratuitous Arguments
H. Judge, I request you examine all the reasons that Slamming the Door
may have failed (i.e. if it's interpreted that Slamming the Door didn't
work for other reasons, it's possible for the rule to exist if it
didn't stop V.J. Rada from calling a CFJ for other reasons).
More gratuitious arguments:
I would suggest that although _general_ such reasons might apply, the
question of whether rule 217 prevented rule 2507 should not depend on any
concrete events happening after the taking effect of the relevant
proposal. Otherwise there would be a serious retroactive effect problem.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Rule 217's wording seems quite clear that it only stops rule changes, not
subsequent effects.
Yeah, I'm just pointing out that "it's possible for the rule to exist if
it didn't stop V.J. Rada from calling a CFJ for other reasons" can only
apply if the stopping occured due to _general_ reasons, not reasons
entirely specific to V.J. Rada's attempts.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
