ais523 wrote: > Also, why should comex's scam legislation address the ramifications of its > claim? That's for a judge to do, not for the scam rule itself. (If the scam > rule did state a judgement to be used in any CFJs regarding it, I rather > suspect that would either be considered judicial corruption, or ignored, > rather than something that the rule is required to do!) If a rule says, or > implies, that a proposal can be modified, it is not ineffective merely > because it does not consider every possible resulting corner case.
I did, and my arguments amounted to "this is broken enough to justify ignoring it in favor of the long-standing custom tied to R106". (I'm tied up with something else this weekend and don't have time to offer more detailed commentary, sorry.) > I also transfer a prop from Murphy (for not including my gratuitous > arguments on CFJ 2376 in its permanent record, but including Goethe's, > giving a rather biased view of the case) to Goethe (for taking the trouble > to debate and come up with good arguments against, rather than just > assuming that it didn't work for no apparent reason). Please point me to said arguments and I'll add them to the record.
