On Nov 7, 2007 12:28 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Zefram wrote: > > > ============================== CFJ 1786a ============================= > > > Judge: judicial panel of Murphy, > > pikhq, root > > I intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND. > > Panelist's arguments: > > First, some hypotheses. > > 1) Goethe did not possess the information e claimed to announce > (the AFO's current list of members), only similar information > (the same list as of the AFO's formation). > > 2) Rule 2173's "disclose" requires at least one target not already > possessing the information in question. > > 3) CFJ 1786's "identifying" does not so require. > > 4) Rule 1504's "manner at least as serious as alleged" examines the > full context of the alleged breach, not just aspects explicitly > stated in the CFJ. > > 5) Rule 1504's "manner at least as serious as alleged" is vacuously > avoidable if the alleged action is not proscribed. > > A judgement of EXCUSED may be inappropriate. Goethe could have chosen > not to make the announcement in question; e would have either avoided > violating Rule 2173 entirely (H2,H3,H5), or restricted the set of > targets to emself (H4). > > A judgement of INNOCENT may be appropriate. (H1) > > A judgement of UNIMPUGNED may be appropriate. (H2,H3). > > A judgement of SLIPPERY may be appropriate. The judge may not know > whether Goethe possessed information as up-to-date as e claimed.
I consent to this judgement. -root
