On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ 1290. > -Goethe
Except that in this case, Judge solublefish repeatedly calls a message Goethe sent for the sole purpose of (possibly) joining the Agora the Beautiful contest-- the published statement "Goethe is a yohgurt-brain" had no other effect, which is more than can be said for contracts-- "implicit", and calls the situation where the message wouldn't have an effect "explicit consent". In the end e judged TRUE, but from eir arguments e clearly wouldn't have if Rule 1617 had required explicit consent, as Rule 101 does.
