G. wrote: > On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote: >> Whereas it is easiest to obtain a reasonable and consistent judgement >> when various facets of the issue are examined independently, >> I call for judgement on each of the following statements: >> >> * Causing a rule to act counts as altering it. >> * Using a mechanism defined by a rule counts as altering it. >> * Modifying a document, and then immediately reverting it to its >> previous state counts as altering it. > > I can't act as a judge in the face of this ridiculous spam. > > Calling for multiple unlinked judgements as a call for "consistency" > is a bit of a farce (as opposed to hoping that one will be assigned > to someone friendly and thus be your loophole) > > I recuse myself from 2651. comex, coppro seems to be on your side. > Why don't you two judge it and let us know how it turns out. I'm > sorry I bothered, I was actually pretty close to coming around to > your side; I was checking a couple things but you had generally > convinced me.
I feel obliged to remind you both that the caller does not control whether assignments are linked.
