On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:13:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote: > > Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as > > "explicit"? > > Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ > 1290. -Goethe
Reading the arguments on 1290, it seems that the consent was taken as being self-evidently implicit and not explicit, and the controversy was whether the rules at the time required consent to be explicit. H. Judge solublefish ruled that they did not. Now, however, we do require "explicit, willful consent", so by the nature of the arguments in CFJ 1290, it would be more natural to say that equations are (strictly, were, but let's not get our tenses too confusing) not automatically binding.
