On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >  While this addresses the original issue with the Vote Market
>  >  agreement, it does not remedy or address the breach of CFJ 1915's
>  >  equation. I will leave it for someone else to determine if that is a
>  >  problem.
>
>  Well, my substantially similar proto was around for almost a whole
>  week with no comment from any parties to the original equation on its
>  substance (although Goethe, a party, did comment extensively on legal
>  issues behind the original solution), and there was no comment from
>  the parties during the pre-trial phase either.
>
>  If this is appealed, I humbly beg the panel to judge REASSIGN.
>
Sorry, I didn't come to that realization until I was updating my
master copy of the Vote Market Broker's Report with the text of your
new equation.

BobTHJ

Reply via email to