Sherlock wrote:
Goethe wrote:
Boy, wouldn't that be the surest way of ensuring I never, ever, ever
re-registered.
Well, let's look at what's happening with my recent ruling regarding the Cantus Cygnaeus CFJ. No one complained about my judgment or argument at the time. Now it's probably going to be appealed and overturned not on the basis of the facts, but so that you can remain a player.
And how is that more intellectually honest than a coin toss?
In the specific case of an ambiguous statement, with two alleged
judgements that are opposite in value, both reasonable, but both
inconsistent with their underlying conditions, I don't think it's
intellectually dishonest for the appeals process to break the tie
on grounds other than reasonable-ness.
Furthermore, the reason I suggested overturning your judgement
rather than Goethe's is not a desire to convince Goethe to
re-register in future - I believe that any judicial resolution
would convince em, or at least go as far as we can toward that
end - but rather a desire to minimize the impact of the
unfortunately worded Proposal 4882.
