On 2/28/07, Scott Rollins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While the message Michael sent in the message referred to in the
Statement of the Current CFJ does not specify IN DETAIL the proposals on
which e intended to vote, it does identify. There is no evidence on the
record of any dispute as to which
Michael Slone wrote:
On 2/28/07, Scott Rollins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While the message Michael sent in the message referred to in the
Statement of the Current CFJ does not specify IN DETAIL the proposals on
which e intended to vote, it does identify. There is no evidence on the
record of an
Maud wrote:
What could a message such as ``I hereby vote AGAINST all proposals
currently up for vote'' mean besides ``For each proposal currently up
for vote, I hereby identify that proposal and submit a ballot AGAINST
it'? It's one of the clearest examples of ``I say I do, therefore I
do'' o
Sherlock's judgements in 1616 and 1615 are reasonable. OscarMeyr's
judgement in 1614 is reasonable. Unfortunately, they are in direct
opposition, so there's no clear precedent. Any ideas on whether an
appeals process is useful to resolve this?
-Goethe
On 2/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Even given that those M people might agree to create additional
partnerships out of proper subsets, thus forming a bloc of 2^M-1
voters (including the natural persons)? Granted, this is Not
Easy, either.
Simpler -- don't give Partnerships any fr
Eris wrote:
Simpler -- don't give Partnerships any free votes.
Sigh. But that's the point. If you're not going to grant partnerships
any benefits of registering why regulate them at all? It's just a
wasted Rule.
Murphy has a proposal which says "persons are natural persons only",
which ve
Goethe wrote:
Sherlock's judgements in 1616 and 1615 are reasonable. OscarMeyr's
judgement in 1614 is reasonable. Unfortunately, they are in direct
opposition, so there's no clear precedent. Any ideas on whether an
appeals process is useful to resolve this?
I don't believe they're in opposi
--- Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sherlock's judgements in 1616 and 1615 are reasonable.
Well, that's an unfortunate position. I was hoping for a rhyming appeal.
:)
Sherlock
No need to miss
8 matches
Mail list logo
