On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:28 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > I intend to call for reconsideration of this judgement with two > support. Changing Activity is regulated per R2125 c) and e) and thus > impossible to perform "except as allowed by the rules", while Rule > 1688 states that securing an action makes it impossible "except as > allowed by an Instrument with Power greater than or equal to the > change's Power Threshold". Since all the rules in question are > Instruments with Power >= 2, the restrictions are equivalent in this > case, so it doesn't make sense for the judgement to hinge on whether > or not it's secured.
Anyone wanna support this? Regardless of what you think about the scam, the judgement is flawed.
