On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> If by "explain the situation" you mean "translate the whole ruleset to >> avoid CFJ 1856" then I agree with you that this would work (this is why I >> said in the first place it would never happen). -G. > > Pretty sure people have called CFJs as non-players without reading most of > the ruleset.
Oh that's right, we're not talking about registering anymore. If we're just asking whether someone who fits the description would be considered a person, we could just do a hypothetical CFJ (it looks like my proposal to require Rights cases to have Standing is going down in flames). -Goethe
