On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In my judgement of CFJ 2094, I also find that objecting to a dependent > action whilst not being commonly known by the name ais523 is a regulated > action. (This is completely irrelevant to the judgement; however, it > should be enough to trigger rule 2125(f).)
Yeah, we'll all carefully weigh the implications of ignoring this paragraph before not letting it guide future play.
