On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > 2399: NOT GUILTY > > Violating Rule 2215 requires intention to mislead. No evidence has been > presented that the PNP or any of its parties have so intended; in fact, > the plaintiff did not even bother to cite any specific mistakes (for the > record, I believe e was prompted by Proposal 6101).
The initiation of the case: On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Elliott Hird <penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> 6135 O 1 1.5 comex because e is one > AGAINST (may not be valid) > > CoE: Submitted by Murphy. Goethe, actually. I NoV against the PNP accusing em of violating Power=2 Rule 2215 by distributing proposals without taking appropriate measures to prevent errors in them. As such errors are nearly certain to occur once in a while, people will almost certainly be misled by proposal distributions; thus the act of distribution is generally intended to mislead people.
