On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I do this to the pubic forum: > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:09 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > Therefore, there is no recordkeepor of >>> > public contracts (the phrase itself is an oxymoron), and therefore I >>> > judge FALSE. >>> >>> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support. If being a >>> recordkeepor for information is not defined, then it is equivalent to >>> being a recordkeeper for it. No Agoran rule attempts to define the >>> term "recordkeepor". >> >> I support this. >> >> Additional arguments: >> The judgment makes a distinction between being a "recordkeepor of >> information (about X)" and "recordkeepor of X". There is no such >> distinction, since records are inherently information. >> >> -woggle > >
I support this as well. With 2 support I appeal the judgement.
