On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Not to distract from your overall point, but picking a nit: didn't we >> have a precedent that every player was notified if something was sent to the >> PF, a person was notified if something was sent to their registered e-mail >> address, but there was *no guarantee* that someone was notified by a >> message sent to discussion? > > Yes, CFJ 1888. > > Contrast, though, Judge Zefram's arguments in CFJ 1916, where e argued that > publicity was unnecessary for consent. We may need to draw some fairly subtle > distinctions in order to distinguish in this case.
>From recent conversation (around Agree2Support), it was argued that no communication at all is needed to consent to some things (like non-binding agreements). For example, if I made up my mind to consent to a judgement, but I don't say anything, and you posted something saying "we all consent", and it so happens that I do, you're safe and it works... assuming that, if questioned, I state for the record that I *had* consented at the time. Pretty risky thing to depend on though! -Goethe
