On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:23 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2238 >> >> ============================== CFJ 2238 ============================== >> >> When a person performs an action that takes parameters, e must >> unambiguously specify the parameters. >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> Caller: comex >> >> Judge: Wooble >> Judgement: TRUE > > I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support, because it does not > address CFJ 1307-- in particular, its definition of "specify". Wooble > stated in a-d that e "think[s] CFJ 1307 was wrongly decided", but it > is a longstanding precedent. While we are not required to follow > precedent in Agora, neither should we completely ignore it.
Why? The judgement doesn't contradict CFJ 1307. If you want to reverse the CFJ 1307 precedent, call a new case. -root
