I'll respond to this with a debate question:
Resolved: That announcing intent to do something, in such a way
that it would satisfy R1728 requirements, is an unregulated action.
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I CFJ “By sending a message at 3:35 PM Pacific on October 27, G.
No—I would have barred him.
Gaelan
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:28 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I am tempted to assign this to G., so that e is required to give a verdict
> that compiles with No Faking. Any reason why I shouldn’t do that?
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:22 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
E could recuse, find it INSUFFICENT, publish a disclaimer with the ruling,
or probably get out of it in several other ways that I haven’t thought of.
-Aris
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> I am tempted to assign this to G., so that e is required to give a verdict
> that
I am tempted to assign this to G., so that e is required to give a verdict
that compiles with No Faking. Any reason why I shouldn’t do that?
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:22 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I CFJ “By sending a message at 3:35 PM Pacific on October 27, G. performed
> one or more regulated
Huh. Nothing of interest in headers that I could see, and no unicode anywhere
in the message. If this is hiding something, it’s doing a damn good job. Maybe
it’s a test for a timing scam?
I’m intrigued, yet worried.
Gaelan
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
5 matches
Mail list logo
