On 8/14/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/13/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eep. Looking at CFJ 1646, I'm somewhat disappointed that the Judge > > offered no arguments for eir departure from the previous findings of > > CFJs 707 and 866. Now all my timestamps are wrong. > > 707 refers to a rule that doesn't exist that referred to Date headers > explicitly.
That reference is related to a specific aspect of the CFJ concerning the end of the voting period; it has no bearing on the more general precedent set four paragraphs earlier. Also, note that if the precedent were based on that rule, it would be have to be a completely different precedent in order to make sense. > 866 refers to time of receipt, and the rules say that an action takes > effect at the time of publication. Where do they say that? All I can find is this quite ambiguous statement from R478: "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message." > I don't see anything in those CFJs that says that things take effect > at the time of receipt that would still apply to the current ruleset. > Did I miss anything? I don't see how any of the arguments that were made have ceased to apply. -root
