On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 13:35 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> It was created by the edited proposal 6072, when it was enacted, to >>> replace the repealed rule 2238. (CFJs have just ruled that the proposal >>> was successfully edited, and that the Agoran Decision on it successfully >>> enacted the edited proposal.) >> >> Oh that's right, comex ignored the gentleman's part about not leapfrogging >> 2238. I submit the following proposal, "because e is one", AI 1.5: > > Actually, that was proposal 6084 that would have repealed it, so comex > got the amendment in first; it's just that there was a subsequent mess > of CFJs, as always, and it seems e held off on setting off the win until > after it was settled, so as to prevent muddying gamestate even further.
Fair enough; I retract any implied slur (I misremembered that e self- repealed all parts of the scam right after performing them). E still, by definition, deserves scamster, though! :). -G.
