On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> Actually, they all fail, by the precedent of CFJ 1774. > > Counterargument: the disparity of effort between Tanner announcing > "I perform <asset-related action> $BIGNUM times" and the relevant > officer recording that e did so is much less than in CFJ 1774, which > referred to announcing "I CFJ on <statement> $BIGNUM times".
Historical note: 10,000 was specifically chosen so that rather than jumping from, say, 1774 to 1974, it could go to 11774. Although, in retrospect, I suppose the CFJs would have just been deleted by proposal had they been ruled to succeed...
