On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comex wrote: >>- rule: 2149 >>- action: eating cake. > > R2149 does not regulate gustatory activity. > >>- rule: 2149 >>- action: claiming that eating cake is a violation of Rule 2149
E actually violated a contract instead. ##nomic was a contract forbidding the eating of cake at the time (if i have my timing correct). > Ah, finally, a non-trivial issue. We haven't actually established whether > the initiation of a criminal CFJ constitutes an unqualified allegation > of rule violation. R1504 speaks of an "allegation" internally, but > only as a way to identify the parameters of the case. For the record, > I was undecided about this issue when I drafted it. > > -zefram >
