On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> > So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences >> > to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots >> >> So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said "For each decision in >> the list of decisions which a reasonable person would think currently >> exist, (and I do hereby quasi-incorporate that list), I vote FOR on >> it"... > > Naw, I think the legal fiction can be platonic. It's a weird state where > practically there can be a proposal you don't know about, but legally > you can be deemed to have acknowledged it by specifying the full set.
Well, I disagree with that. It is unreasonable to allow X as an "administrative convenience" shorthand for Y if nobody, not even the administrators, know what Y is. ...How do fungible assets fit into this scheme?
