On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:19 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Gratuitous argument on the second CFJ: See the most recent self-ratified >> IADoP's report. (The report of 26 Aug 2008 listed pikhq as Speaker, who >> self-evidently is not Michael Norrish.) > > Yes, but "shall be" and "is" are quite different.
I initiate a criminal case against pikhq, for breaching Rule 104 by not being Michael Norrish. Seriously, I wonder if the same argument would hold to the effect that the Monsterized version of Rule 104 would be without effect... or would the fact that it's being enacted now nullify the game-custom and best-interest arguments? Are we in the first game, or the (number of game wins + 1)th game?
