Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:54 PM, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I initiate a criminal CFJ, noting that the Accused had plenty of
>>> warning and the opportunity to avoid violating the rule.
>
> Arguments in my defense:
>
> While ais523 was able to find one proposal that was in the pool that
> was not in the published report, simply adding that proposal to the
> report would not have guaranteed the accuracy of the report, any more
> than my looking through the last 2 months of the public fora to find
> missing proposals guaranteed this. We still don't know if there are
> more missing proposals, and considering the fact that we don't have a
> complete archive of messages that have been sent to the public fora in
> the past, it may be impossible to ever be sure of the "correct" status
> of the pool. comex's earlier assertion that the ability to find a
> single proposal and thus produce a "more correct" report is nonsense;
> a report is either correct or incorrect. While there's now proof that
> the report was incorrect, it's still unclear that a fully correct
> report can be produced.
>From Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases):
(e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the
breach without committing a different breach of equal or
greater severity.
Arguably producing a "less correct" report is a "breach of ... greater
severity" than producing a "more correct" one. But is it a /different/
breach? I would argue for no.
As a matter of style, though, I recommend annotating or disclaiming the
report to the effect that the proposal pool is in dispute.
