On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote: > Cool cool. It was a double whammy of precedence I was trying to set. > > 1 - you can CFJ on questions (non-controvertial) > 2 - some future conditionals are legit outside of voting (but I tried > to ensure that it was limited in scope)
Yeah, the full impact of #2 hit me on the second reading. I thought: well, I wouldn't ask for reconsideration because of my mistake, but I might point out how far reaching this could be! (Then I thought "what the heck, might be a fun if risky direction").
