On 11-06-29 09:03 AM, Charles Walker wrote:
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?
You put an irrelevant statement which I believe to be incorrect into
your arguments. I have to file a motion to reconsider to get it out.
-scshunt
