Gratuitous: Long precedent and Agoran tradition holds that "explicitly" is defined as "".
Sent from my iPhone On Nov 24, 2011, at 10:56 PM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > Tanner L. Swett wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Ed Murphy<[email protected]> wrote: >>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3128 >>> >>> ============================== CFJ 3128 ============================== >>> >>> The above purported attempt to initiate a criminal CfJ failed >>> because it did not allege that the defendent violated the rule >>> it named. >>> >>> ======================================================================== >> >> I judge TRUE. The reasoning is straightforward: if nobody alleged that >> the rule was violated, then the rule allegedly violated was not >> specified. > > I intend (with 2 support) to request reconsideration. Especially in > light of CFJ 3126, "X committed crime Y defined by rule Z" clearly > (albeit implicitly) implies "X thereby violated rule Z". If Rule > 1504 said "explicitly specify", then it'd be a different story.
