ais523 wrote: > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:37 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Oh, so you're interpreting R2150 as "must include". Again, though, this >> is trivially satisfied by your theoretical ability to hire one or more >> sufficiently competent human translators. > > Is a theoretical ability enough, though? For instance, I'm not certain > that I could afford to hire a competent translator for enough time to > meaningfully participate in Agora. I agree that I probably am, indeed, a > person; I just thought this would serve as a good subject for a random > stray CFJ (which apparently doesn't exist, despite the intent being > clear enough?)
It was reasonably clear that you intended to initiate a case, but the details were considerably less clear; presumably an inquiry case on "I am a person", but the Yoda-esque alteration of word order and especially "conviction" muddy the waters. Does rot13, applied twice, count as a translation service? Proto-proto: Amend Rule 2150 to weaken English's status to that of lingua franca (with the usual irony involved in calling it that). > This does actually bring up an interesting question: If someone > non-English submits a proposal, CFJ, or other such document in their > native language (it being translated), what counts as the "official" > proposal? The translated version? We could always arrange a test.
