On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I see no reason for it to have failed. Can you point me to where e >>> changed it back? I can't find it in my archive. >> >> The argument for failure was that ehird still refered to the old >> ehird, and thus having avpx named ehird created abiguity. > > ehird had already changed eir name to tusho at the time and was not a > player in any case. It is not clear whether the precedent from CFJs > 1703 and 1361 would still apply in this case. > > -root >
Which is (i believe) the point of tusho's "ehird is a player" CFJ
