comex wrote: > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You appear to have ignored my >> reasonable (or so I think) arguments that UNDECIDABLE is never >> appropriate. I believe these arguments consisted of the fact that in >> the case of ambiguity, there's extremely strong precedent that >> UNDECIDABLE is not appropriate, and in the case of contradiction, one >> contradictory thing will take precedence over the other--if not by >> some explicit precedence clause in the rules, then by rule 217. >> >> I can initiate criminal cases as a member of the PerlNomic >> Partnership, which means that I can initiate criminal cases against >> judges and members of judicial panels for judging GUILTY and AFFIRM >> inappropriately. > > Normally I would like to give ihope the benefit of the doubt, because > people should not be penalized for stating their opinions about a > controversy. But it is true that ihope used this statement, > unqualified, as arguments for a criminal CFJ [1]; e did not even > bother to defend himself [2]; and now he is threatening the judicial > system. I intend, with the support of the rest of the panel, to > REMAND this case, if only to let Judge Wooble pick a better > punishment. > > [1] > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-July/012744.html > [2] http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/format.php?cfj=2107
I support this.
