On Feb 8, 2008 12:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/8/08, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I hereby initiate a criminal case, alleging > > that comex violated rule 2149 by claiming in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that proposal > > 5419 passed while not believing that to be true. > > I did not claim that the proposal passed; rather, I claimed > (correctly) that I was claiming that the proposal passed. >
So your claim of error is that the report of the voting results erroneously did not report your claim of error, which itself isn't part of the voting results? Does this mean that a single player can indefinitely delay the ratification of any document without violating rule 2149 simply by making claims of error that are themselves true statements but that are completely irrelevant to the document in question? (e.g., claim of error: 2+2=4)
