On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Jul 2008, Quazie wrote: >> I judge this to be TRUE. The message is certainly a public message, >> and by all previous precedent a person publishes a public message when >> it leaves a persons technical domain of control. As such, the message >> has been in existence for the week it needs to be to fulfill R2201 and >> self ratifies. As a result, we need to fix this, as when the a-b and >> what not go down, if they were to go down for more than a week we >> could have some interesting scams. > > I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support. It ignores the > precedent set for the definition of "via" in "via a public forum." > -Goethe
FWIW, I object. I fail to see how the "via" precedent of CFJ 1905 is relevant here. All that precedent tells us is that a message must be sent via the PF to be public, as opposed to just to the PF. By that precedent, the message in question would be public. The judgement even specifically states "Thus, a message that is initially blocked, but subsequently approved by the Distributor and re-sent, would qualify as public." So the message is definitely public, and the only question revolves around timing. CFJ 1905 does not concern itself with timing. Our current precedent on that is from CFJ 1646, and Quazie cites it correctly. -root
