comex wrote: > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ineffective, must be submitted to the CotC who was not on the channel >> at the time. > > Just like with any other PF, you SHOULD ensure you can receive > messages via it, and messages sent via it are prima facie considered > to be received by you, I'd say.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. :) "prima facie" = "evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient" (Wikipedia). In this case, a rebuttal exists; the log shows that I left the channel before the time in question and rejoined it afterward, and Warrigal could have easily determined that I was not on the channel at the time in question. If you like, you can initiate an inquiry case on whether it counted as submitted once I read the log. If anyone attempts criminal prosecution of my prior inaction, I claim UNAWARE on the grounds that I reasonably believed that it didn't so count.
