On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:14 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x. >> >> Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting. >> >> Thus partnerships can't do anything. > > Umm... that is an absurd precedent. I don't know why I didn't support > your attempt to appeal it. In particular, it directly contradicts the > precedent of CFJs 1833-5, while citing an irrelevant precedent that > deals with one person *becoming* another, rather than just acting on > behalf of em. Not to mention that partnerships' R101 rights would be > infringed if they couldn't do anything. In other words, although it's > too late to appeal it, I think it would be wise to overturn that > precedent as soon as possible. >
Oh, and by the way, comex never took anything back from the AFO, or at least there is a question of if that succeeded until Murphy's recent CFJs are judged.
