On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 19:15 +0100, Alex Smith wrote: > I also submit the People's Bank of Agora as a gratuitous > argument on that CFJ, even though it wasn't expecting it and it's rather > out of place.
I NoV against the PBA for breaking the power-1 rule 2205 by being classified as arguments on a CFJ, despite being more a matter of fact than of legal interpretation, and not understanding and carefully weighing the full consequences of not being classified as evidence instead. Arguments: Stop applying MMI to inanimate objects. Please! This is clearly just a wording bug in rule 2205. Also, the PBA couldn't possibly have done the understand-and-carefully-weigh bit due to being a partnership, which therefore has no thoughts at all (per the cloud of informal arguments that sprang up around CFJ 2399). -- ais523
