On 8/2/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > the rule requires "the statement" > >to be inquired into to be included and I don't think it's sufficient > >that someone could take the > >initiator's announcement and formulate a statement that maybe e wanted > >evaluated from it. > > That's a better argument than you made with your judgement. > > >Let the appeals fall where they may. > > If you'd made your new argument with the judgement then I probably > wouldn't have considered appeal. As it is, although I could be satisfied > with the judgement, I'm not happy about it resting on such a flawed > argument as we have on the record. This sort of interpretational > issue will probably come up again, so it seems important to have a > solid judgement. Anyone else up for an appeal? > > Btw, did you consider the third interpretation, that Murphy's message > was so unclear that it failed to initiate a CFJ at all? > > -zefram >
I didn't find Murphy's message to be unclear in the least. I found the wording to clearly express an intent to initiate a criminal case with a specific defendant accused of violating a specific rule by performing a specific action. -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
