On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, comex wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: >> I publish a Notice of Violation: >> a. Accused: comex >> b. Action: Misleading others as to the power of Rule 2238 by claiming >> unequivocally an official report that its power is 3 (standard is >> to note the controversy as part of the record); this misleading is >> clearly done knowingly, for personal gain and as part of an Office. >> c. Broken Rule: 2215 > > I contest this. Official reports are not self-ratifying. None of the > rulekeepor's reports are self-ratifying. I did not intend to ratify > the document without objection. Given the circumstances, I question > how I misled anyone or what the message had to do with my office.
I apologize if this is so. When you denied and posted the 'did not', 'did too', I assumed you were acknowledging that the statement "Rule 2238 is a Power=3 rule" to BUS was meant to be a self-ratifying statement from the rulekeepor disguised (initially) as musings; I was guided by your recent specific use of the R2201(b) for the same scam. Please understand my paranoia, but if I can get an independent assessment (anyone else?) that your statement has no danger, I'll apologize again... :) -Goethe
