On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 16:14, comex <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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... :)
>
> Oh, it was a scam and you broke it, just for the wrong reason: I was
> going to declare it self-ratifying a few minutes before seven days
> after it was published. :) Ah well, we'll see how the other CFJ goes.
Proposal: Secure Self-Ratification (AI=3)
{{
Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying
with:
Any public document defined by rules with power at least 2 as
self-ratifying
Enact a new rule titled "Offical Pragmatism" with Power 3 and the text:
The portion of a public message purporting to be an IADoP's
report that lists the holder of each office is self-ratifying.
Amend Rule 2138 (The International Associate Director of Personnel) by removing:
The portion of a public message purporting to be an IADoP's
report that lists the holder of each office is self-ratifying.
Set the Power of Rule 2212 (Judicial Declarations) to 2 and amend by replacing:
A judicial declaration published by a judge as required by the
rules
with:
A judicial declaration published by a judge as required by
rules with power at least 2
}}
-woggle
