ais523 wrote: > I call for judgement on the statement "I favoured a CFJ by Murphy with > the statement 'It is legal to announce that CFJ 2670 was appealed.'". I > favour the CFJ that's the subject of that CFJ (to remove ambiguity). > > Arguments: > If a public forum is permanently down, is it possible to send a message > via it?
Arguments: I'd like to reexamine the precedent that messages sent via a 'down' forum occur when sent to the list, particularly if the sender is aware that the forum is down. The timing of slow-sent messages, like the validity of obfuscated ones, should be partly based on the sender's intent. Deliberate latency is a Bad Thing. Don't make me do a proof of concept.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
