On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> > In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may >> > not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist), >> > you may be referring to it, but you're not "clearly identifying" it, >> > therefore not voting. >> >> This implies that blanket votes are generally ineffective. *shrug* > > Well, the current jurisprudence is that they're effective as an > administrative convenience, as long as they can be mapped onto a clear and > unambiguous set of individual votes (and therefore, in a strict legal sense, > that they identify every member of that set). I know I used this sort of > logic in CFJ 2316 (that's the first CFJ that comes to mind). -G.
But the statement "I vote on all decisions etc" implies only that at least one such decision exists; it certainly does not acknowledge that P7000 exists, so by your logic, it couldn't be a valid vote on P7000.
