On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:37 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy Unification >> VERY STRONGLY AGAINST. Better to force judges to actually think about >> why exactly the defendant is not guilty, rather than judge INNOCENT >> and hope nobody appeals it. The role of concrete rule-defined >> obligations has already been dumbed down with equity cases and >> support-requiring criminal cases. > > If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote > AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting > AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR).
...and by force me to vote AGAINST, I mean prevent me from voting anything else, of course. --Warrigal, who has the honor to remain Escher's most humble and obedient servant
