On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 09:57, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
E can. But e should also specify whether e is appealing the question on culpability or the question on sentencing. -woggle
