DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Why not to repeal Rule 1795

On 7/23/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Upon the adoption of this proposal, Zefram incurs a requirement to publish a sonnet within three minutes after the adoption of this proposal. That's a bit harsh isn't it? I mean I would give em 5 minutes at least BobTHJ

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Why not to repeal Rule 1795

Ed Murphy wrote: >Proto-Proposal: Why not to repeal Rule 1795 R1795 wouldn't do much to stop you if you wanted to do that. My favoured arrangement is that proposals should not be able to impose obligations directly (no more than they can create legal fictions), so if you wanted to impose a sonne

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Why not to repeal Rule 1795

BobTHJ wrote: On 7/23/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Upon the adoption of this proposal, Zefram incurs a requirement to publish a sonnet within three minutes after the adoption of this proposal. That's a bit harsh isn't it? I mean I would give em 5 minutes at least Judge Lind

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Why not to repeal Rule 1795

Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Proto-Proposal: Why not to repeal Rule 1795 R1795 wouldn't do much to stop you if you wanted to do that. My favoured arrangement is that proposals should not be able to impose obligations directly (no more than they can create legal fictions), so if you wanted