On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But it does make being a contest regulated via 2125(b). And there's no > backing at all for your assertion that judgements can arbitrarily > change or set regulated properties. In fact that assertion is > discredited. Saying "this judgement makes this contract into a contest" > or equivalently asserting "the following agreement is a contest" is as > powerless and ineffective as saying "this judgement changes your FOR vote > to AGAINST" or "This judgement hereby grants root 5 points."
I don't see how you claim that "this judgement makes this contract into a contest" is equivalent to "the following agreement is a contest". The first is a misstatement, while the second is a specification. Perhaps a clearer phrasing would have been a statement like "I assign as judgement in CFJ 1932 a contest that reads as follows", but I think that what was actually said is equivalent to that in effect. -root
