comex wrote:
>> 5808 D 0 2.0 Murphy Fix OVERLOOKED
> AGAINST, I don't really think the old version is a valid loophole, but
> this sure has the potential to be. I can see what it's supposed to
> mean ("the rule breach it alleged was at least 200 days...") but it
> could easily be misconstrued as making OVERLOOKED inappropriate if the
> initiating announcement didn't happen to specify when the rule breach
> occurred.
I agree that this could be clearer, but R1504(c)'s "specific action"
ought to make such announcements ineffective.
>> 5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy Unification
> VERY STRONGLY AGAINST. Better to force judges to actually think about
> why exactly the defendant is not guilty, rather than judge INNOCENT
> and hope nobody appeals it. The role of concrete rule-defined
> obligations has already been dumbed down with equity cases and
> support-requiring criminal cases.
I haven't gotten the two confused, myself. Those who have, is it the
concepts that are confusing, or just the terms?
Here's my favorite LARP war story, albeit second-hand. Context: the
woman is a vampire, the lawyer was forced into her service.
Mob> We're gonna take her out and hang her!
Lawyer> Why?
Mob> Because she's an unholy demon from hell!
Lawyer> (realizing a golden opportunity) But that's not against the law.
>> 5815 D 1 2.0 Pavitra The Registrar is an office again now.
> AGAINST
Not that I have a strong opinion, but why?
