On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:08, Roger Hicks<pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:05, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: >>> Y'know, after reading R2230 (the NOV rule) I don't know that the above >>> did anything (which is somewhat ironic given the nature of the dispute >>> over this NOV). If the above failed to initiate a criminal case I do >>> the following: >> >> Contesting it without raising a criminal case makes it Contested. If >> the accuser (or others) accept your explanation when you contest it, and >> no one initiates a criminal case, it stays contested and no rests are >> applied. >> >> The additional step of raising the criminal case is only needed if the >> accuser isn't satisfied with your explanation and wants to call >> in a judge to determine if the guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt (or you >> anticipate that the accuser won't be satisfied, so you do it yourself >> just to keep the process moving). >> > Bah! And get salary for serving as Insulator? shame. > > BobTHJ > Insert an "I" there between the And and get.
BobTHJ
