On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/7/27 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> The action in question clearly could not have been taken through email. As >> the Defendant has not attempted to eliminate the subject, the attempted >> action was false. I therefore rule GUILTY. >> >> I sentence ehird as the ninny to APOLOGY -- yielding to Goethe the selection >> of the words to include in this apology -- and sternly warn the ninny: Do >> not threaten players again, for the next time the judge should strongly >> consider a sentence of exile. > > This is an utterly preposterous judgement, as I was assisting in Goethe's > demonstration that failing speech acts were not illegal. It was not a threat > in any shape or form. > > With 2 support I intend to appeal this judgement.
I believe that, since you're the defendant, you can appeal it by announcement. Maybe that was changed, though. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
