On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:12 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Normally I would like to give ihope the benefit of the doubt, because > people should not be penalized for stating their opinions about a > controversy. But it is true that ihope used this statement, > unqualified, as arguments for a criminal CFJ [1]; e did not even > bother to defend himself [2]; and now he is threatening the judicial > system. I intend, with the support of the rest of the panel, to > REMAND this case, if only to let Judge Wooble pick a better > punishment. > > [1] > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-July/012744.html > [2] http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/format.php?cfj=2107
I don't see why the fact that I used it as arguments for a criminal CFJ is relevant. The statement that I didn't bother to defend myself is patently false, as I did defend myself by stating why UNDECIDABLE is never appropriate. "Threatening the judicial system" is quite the loaded term; all I did was point out that knowingly making an inappropriate judgement is illegal. --Ivan Hope CXXVII --Ivan Hope CXXVII
