On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 6:31 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> ========================= Criminal Case 2048 =========================
>>>>
>>>> ehird violated Rule 2149 by saying that e joins.
>>>
>>> As much as I appreciate Goethe's sentiment about the deception, the
>>> registration attempt is an action, and precedent holds that it is
>>> therefore merely ineffective. UNIMPUNGED.
>>
>> Could you please amend your arguments to cite this precedent?
>
> I'm also not sure what "Goethe's sentiment" is here. I agree with
> Taral and the defendant. As for precedent, somewhere in the CFJ
> archives isn't there a case to wit "an imperative (e.g. "I do") is
> neither true nor false"? -Goethe
Oh, ok I just re-read the case, I didn't know those gratuitous comments
had been attached to this case. I wasn't saying the "I register" in itself
was legally lying, I was just saying it's pretty taboo, and if e then went
ahead and denied the truth outright in PF or otherwise kept up the charade
for a while, than the actual denials could be subject to penalty and we might
be annoyed enough to penalize heavily. So e should think carefully before
getting into "actual" lying, which e did!
-Goethe
