On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ---- 1 maybe ----
> On behalf of Human Point Two I do the following { Human Point Two CFJs
> on the following statement: "This is a CFJ" }
>
> Arguments - by Human Point Two - "By R101 I have the right to submit a
> CFJ which is of a higher power than any rule saying that non-first
> class players may CFJ in an inquiry fashion. In fact the rules state
> that a first-class person CAN initiate an inquiry case, and though it
> does not state how inquiry cases relate to non-first-class person.
> Also R 2170 states that Quazie is the Executor of this message, and
> thus might indeed be the person submitting this CFJ. If indeed Quazie
> is submitting this CFJ, then the Executor of a CFJ is also its
> Initiator"
>
> ---- 2 maybe ----
> On behalf of Human Point Two I CFJ on the following: "This is a CFJ"
>
> Arguments - by Quazie - "It has been stated that performing an action
> on behalf of someone is not the same as that person performing that
> action, thus the above CFJ was likely actually submitted by Quazie,
> and thus regardless is likely a CFJ"
>
> ---- 3 certainly ----
> I (Quazie) CFJ on the following statement - "The Executor of a message
> that contains a CFJ is also the Initiator of that CFJ, even if the
> Executor says E submits the CFJ on behalf of someone/something else"
>
> --------
>
> I also ask CotC Murphy, that if any of these CFJs show that a
> partnership that initiates an inquiry CFJ by having another player do
> so on behalf of them are actually initiated, to please make CFJ 2019 a
> CFJ again, reinstate the appeal panel that was assigned to it before
> it 'stopped' being a CFJ and allow any other CFJ initiated 'by a
> partnership' between the initiation of CFJ 2019 and the publishing of
> this message to be a CFJ without having to be resubmitted. Thank you.
>
So, did CFJ 1 and CFJ 2 in this message actually end up as CFJs?
