On 29 June 2011 16:51, Sean Hunt <scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > On 11-06-29 02:32 AM, Charles Walker wrote: >> >> I CFJ on "Chamber is a switch." >> >> Arguments: FALSE as no officer tracks it. The same goes for adoption >> index, which means that no recent proposals have actually had an >> adoption index. This might mean that proposals with a simple majority >> but not VI>= AI actually passed. See CFJ 3020. >> > > I intend, with two support, to file a motion to reconsider. While I'm not > sure if I agree at all with the conclusion that AI is a useless property, I > would note that any comparison against an undefined value is, by convention, > false where a value is required. Since the judge has entered the statement > about VI >= AI into his arguments, I feel compelled to request > reconsideration so that this does not become precedent. > > Sean >
Erm, what? -- Charles Walker
