On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/6/26 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Gratuitous argument: a reasonable person wouldn't agree to be bound by >>> a contract so that restricted eir behavior in such a way. (On the >>> other hand, "would cause" seems a bit weak; if it was worded "might >>> cause" there might be a stronger argument for GUILTY, but it was >>> hardly inevitable that agreeing to the pledge would result in an >>> impaired ability to judge CFJs.) >>> >> >> The pledge didn't restrict my behaviour at all. > > I was referring to the protection racket contract, not the pledge. > I'm not even going to try to argue about the reasonableness of > agreeing to let anyone act on your behalf; you've already seen the > result. > > I certainly wouldn't agree to a contract that forbid me to flip my > posture to supine or go on hold for a few days while I'm on vacation. > Hmm....didn't think of that. Perhaps the Protection Racket needs amended to allow such action?
BobTHJ
