ehird wrote:
> 2009/9/18 ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk>:
>> Arguments: So far there hasn't actually been a situation that needs
>> resolving. I recommend a null judgement. (As comex says, this CFJ was
>> submitted for anti-scam reasons (if a situation arises in the future a
>> judgement to reverse it could then be given), rather than an actual need
>> to sort out a problem that exists now.)
>
> So lemme get this straight, if we don't like your scam we should use
> all the tools available to us to prevent it, but we can't use the
> tools available to us to prevent it?
ais523 is suggesting:
1) deliver a null judgement
2) if/when e mousetraps someone via TCJ, then appeal the null
judgement and deliver an appropriate non-null one
which isn't "do nothing", but isn't the best protection available
either (IMO the judgement should pre-emptively declare that ais523
SHALL NOT turn TCJ into a mousetrap in the first place).
