On 12/20/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As stated above, I find that all of these points conflict with the > best interests of the game, and so I think it important to deviate > from the set interpretation. In contrast, a rational number > interpretation results in no such problems. Based upon that, and upon > Judge Goethe's prior reasoning if VVLOP is assumed to be a number, I > judge CFJs 1826 and 1827 FALSE.
IIRC the Assessor's report has been ratified so this has no effect on the game... right?
