On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:26 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:09 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Without objection, I intend to ratify the excerpted report. >>> >>> Without objection, I ratify the excerpted report. >> >> CoE: you might not have been a player when you posted the intent to >> ratify, making it INVALID. > > Now, that's just silly. I believed that I was a player, everyone else > seemed to believe that I was a player, and nobody objected when I > asked to ratify that I was a player. If people had any reason to > believe that I was not a player, they should have said so before.
It doesn't matter what we believe. If you were a player before, then the ratification didn't change that. If you weren't a player before, then the ratification failed and didn't change that. So the attempted ratification makes absolutely no difference as to whether you're a player. I would have objected if I had realized at the time that the citizenship of the ratifier was one of the things to be ratified. -root
