Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
2009/11/6 Pavitra :
Judge coppro's standard of extreme literal-mindedness would, for
example, refuse to acknowledge eir "FALSE." in the message quoted above
as meaning "I hereby assign the judgement FALSE to the question on
veracity in CFJ 2728."
The oft-invoked R754(1) s
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2729
>
> === CFJ 2729 (Interest Index = 0)
>
> The Assumption of the Registrar is Postulated.
>
> =
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I didn't come up with "it came in on a scam, it should go out on a
> scam" (IIRC I first heard it during a phone call with OscarMeyr a year
> or two ago) but, having heard it, I agree with it (provided that the
> scam clearly does work, i.e. does not rely on
c. wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:30 AM, ais523 wrote:
>> and if 2029 is modified or repealed, it should be
>> via a scam that's powerful enough to modify it, probably with everyone
>> not involved in the scam try to stop it.
>
> It would be a fitting end for Rule 2029, but a scam to repeal a
4 matches
Mail list logo
