On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I don't think R101's relevant here when a contract isn't involved (one >> was in the case of CFJ 1856). It would, probably, prevent me ratifying >> the IIB as a player, as its personness is in doubt for >> contract-law-related reasons. > > Well, I forget what the current status of rules-as-a-contract is; if > we're currently viewing the rules themselves as a contract, or if > we're not but we return to that standpoint someday without an explicit > rule change, then that could be a problem.
The language is gone now, privileges are no more. For pre-privilege repeal, despite lots of debate, it's still never been used as a critical argument (e.g. a precedent) in a CFJ, unless I missed it. The supreme court would be proud. -Goethe
