On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gratuitous arguments:
>
> You were marked as party to Brainfuck Golf in the last two Notary
> reports. I've looked through history, and found the message archived at
> <http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-February/009502.html>
> which shows you leaving back in February, before either report. (However,
> the message had a subject starting DIS:, which is misleading, to say the
> least, as it appears to have been sent to a public forum.)
That's just the way the mailing list replies work when you don't
change the subject line. And it's generally poor form to change the
subject line, since it messes up the message threading for some
clients.
> Rule 2178 says:
> {{{
> Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not
> become effective until they are published.
> }}}
>
> It's not clear to me whether this particular change was ever published
> (or counted as published);
It was published when I announced it.
> at least, two reports that contradicted it
> have been published since, and no claims of error were made against that
> particular part of the report. (I repeated the previous Notary's
> information that root was party to Brainfuck Golf, because root's
> membership status in Brainfuck Golf had not changed since it, and that
> claim was never challenged.)
The fact of whether it was reported correctly has no bearing on
whether it actually happened. Even if one of those reports was
ratified, it could not rebind me to the contract, since that would
violate my R101 rights.
-root
