On 10/27/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > root, since you complain about burdens on judges, how about > helping to set a precedent of minimal demands of evidence > (again, I recognize that the ordering of the arguments and > CFJ were an honest mistake, but the custom of considering the > ordering of actions in a single message is pretty well set, > the CotC acted appropriately, and it costs comex nothing to > re-CFJ, it would be faster than an appeal).
I think that the arguments were clearly apropos to the CFJ, and that the physical ordering is irrelevant. On the other hand, the CotC apparently isn't currently required to reproduce the arguments at all, so I shouldn't complain too loudly. However, you're right that the burden in this case shouldn't fall upon the judge. Perhaps we're too quick to appeal these days -- there certainly have been a lot of them lately. comex, I suggest you call a new CFJ, as Goethe requests. -root
