On Mon, 4 May 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Considering the relative difficulty with which the present judicial
> panel was assembled, unless someone can find either a logical fallacy in
> the arguments here presented or a relevant judicial precedent implying
> FALSE, I recommend a ruling of AFFI
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Note that R1482 doesn't explicitly define precedence when there's no
>>> conflict, so precedence is not defined in the rules, so a "rules are
>>> silent" argument can be made on eit
Quazie wrote:
> I stand.
Ineffective, you can't stand except by sitting and getting rotated.
> I increase my rank to at least 2.
Ineffective, not specific enough.
root wrote:
> TTttPF.
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> coppro wrote:
>>>
I support and do so.
>>> H. Justiciar root, any preference on this one?
>> Sure, I make CFJ 2482a hot.
>>
>> There should be a lukewarm optio
Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> coppro wrote:
>>
>>> I support and do so.
>> H. Justiciar root, any preference on this one?
>
> Sure, I make CFJ 2482a hot.
>
> There should be a lukewarm option, indicating no preference but
> allowing the CotC to go ahead a
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>> I support and do so.
>
> H. Justiciar root, any preference on this one?
Sure, I make CFJ 2482a hot.
There should be a lukewarm option, indicating no preference but
allowing the CotC to go ahead and assign a panel.
-root
coppro wrote:
> I support and do so.
H. Justiciar root, any preference on this one?
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Note that R1482 doesn't explicitly define precedence when there's no
>> conflict, so precedence is not defined in the rules, so a "rules are
>> silent" argument can be made on either side. It's all sema
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:02 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
I judge this TRUE; rule 101 has higher Power, so by rule 1482 it does
indeed t
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Wooble wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
I judge this TRUE; rule 101 has higher Power, so by rule 1482 it does
indeed take precedence.
>>> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this ruling. R1482 on
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:02 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
I judge this TRUE; rule 101 has higher Power, so by rule 1482 it does
indeed take precedence.
>>> I intend, with 2 su
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:02 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> I judge this TRUE; rule 101 has higher Power, so by rule 1482 it does
>>> indeed take precedence.
>>
>> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal th
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Rodlen wrote:
> > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Geoffrey Spear >wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> >>> I judge this TRUE; rule 101 has higher Power, so by rule 1482 it does
> >>> ind
Wooble wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:02 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> I judge this TRUE; rule 101 has higher Power, so by rule 1482 it does
>>> indeed take precedence.
>> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this ruling. R1482 only appl
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Rodlen wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> I judge this TRUE; rule 101 has higher Power, so by rule 1482 it does
>>> indeed take precedence.
>>
>> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this r
On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 14:02 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I judge this TRUE; rule 101 has higher Power, so by rule 1482 it does
> > indeed take precedence.
>
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this ruling. R1482 only applies
> in conflic
16 matches
Mail list logo
