omd wrote: > 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: Â 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...
Alternatively, they could have been given chaotic numbers like 14000001 through 14010000, so that the orderly numbers would still roughly reflect the number of distinct statements.
