On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, comex wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> Note that this only became a problem with "Take it to equity!" was >>> adopted; before that, you could go straight to criminal prosecution >>> of the members for failing to keep the AFO obedient. >> >> I'm not so sure. "Take it to equity!" prevents violations from being >> against R1742. However, it could still be a prosecutable criminal >> offense for members to fail in their devolved responsibilities (e.g. a >> violation against R2145 instead, and a higher-power rule at that). >> That's an entirely different avenue I hadn't thought about. > > Sounds good, except that Rule 2145 looks pretty Platonic to me. > However, amending it to do what you suggest would be interesting.
How can something be platonic when the proof is in the execution? It's what, pragmatically platonic? platonically pragmatic? Pragtonic? Platmatic? -Goethe
