On 6/24/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This may be the basis for an out-of-court settlement between the > AFO and the plaintiffs (I'd suggest members of the AFO other than > comex might like to take the lead), which this judge would respect, > with the caveat that, since *some* members of the AFO have shown > bad faith in following through with past settlements, there have > to be some strong assurances for this judge (e.g. if the settlement > is material, funds in escrow) on the AFO's ability and willingness > to live up to its obligations.
Goethe, I seem to have pissed you off. However, I am not ehird (who recently suggested proposing a rule that would award a win to the author of a message that broke the most number of rules with the shortest amount of text), and you greatly exaggerate my failure to abide by or lack of respect for the rules (that I am not timely about posting apologies is your main problem, no? well, I will be more timely next time). Indeed, the terms set out in your judgement seemed reasonable when I read them, except of course for the threat of the AFO ceasing to be a person. I for one, preferring not to be criminally punished for a successful scam, am very likely to accept an equation with similar terms regarding giving back crops on behalf of the AFO. I merely objected to the equation's attempt to coerce the AFO into it, because it (a) assumes that I will act in bad faith and (b) is illegal. Indeed, my treatment of the equation as obviously invalid in my response to Goethe's message posting it was based not on any contempt for it but my impression, at the time, that it was. In saying this I am certainly not conceding that the judgement works. When I get home, I will post a detailed message with respect to why that equation couldn't possibly be forcibly binding on the AFO in the way it envisions, and correcting the error that I did make and that root spotted. Rather, I am trying to defuse the tension I seem to have quite unnecessarily created with respect to this equity case. Are we metagaming, or roleplaying? Is the stealing of a few crops from a contract truly such a terrible scam that it is to be severely punished? I can name a lot of scams that ought to cause very heated debate and name-calling, and this is not one of them. Goethe, for the sake of Agora, please save your fire for a time more worthy of it. Submit your previous equation or a harsher one if you want, before even having received arguments from the parties concerning equitability, but if you do so, don't complain when it doesn't work.
