On Sun, 1 Mar 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > I judge CFJ 2393 TRUE. A rule imposing a deadline is violated when > the deadline occurs; continued failure to perform the required action > does not itself violate the rules, and indeed if the person required > to perform the action does so after the deadline, they have still > violated the rule by not performing the action on time.
This CFJ misses one of the questions surrounding ehird's case; that is, ehird deregistered before the time limit expired (thus was under no obligation when the time limit actually expired) then re- registered later, (perhaps?) placing emself under the obligation at the moment of registration. -Goethe
