On 29 November 2011 22:33, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Pavitra wrote: > > On 11/28/2011 07:20 PM, omd wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Ed Murphy<emurph...@socal.rr.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I intend (with 2 support) to request reconsideration. Especially in >>>>> light of CFJ 3126, "X committed crime Y defined by rule Z" clearly >>>>> (albeit implicitly) implies "X thereby violated rule Z". If Rule >>>>> 1504 said "explicitly specify", then it'd be a different story. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Anyone want to second/third this? >>>> >>> >>> Support. >>> >> >> Support. It's not reasonably ambiguous which rule was allegedly violated. >> > > Having received 2 support, I request reconsideration. > > But the law has not been violated at all. The law has been followed perfectly, and used to commit a crime, and should use whatever methods Agora has for dealing with people who commit crime.
