On Sep 27, 2017 9:18 AM, "VJ Rada" <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Third: Is Aris's attempt to object sufficient? E simply stated "I object to all the intents in the below message" or similar. Under our precedents, which ban somebody from taking an unreasonable number of actions in shorthand where copying and pasting would be hard, does this shorthand take too many actions? Is our precedent in this area, more common-law than textual, able to be flexibly applied to serve the purpose of stopping scams as Aris contends? I submit the following gratuitous arguments: I think it's important to consider, esp since shorthand is common law, an interpretation where the intent and outcomes are important. In this case, where Aris specifically isolates a group of intents and uses shorthand to object to all of them, it's clear what the intent and outcome are. I think this is clearly different from a message sent directly to a-b claiming "I object to everything it is legal to object to." If we are willing to use clarity as part of our interpretation of "acceptable shorthand," I think an unambiguous intent to perform a specific action (ie object to a specific intent) and outcome (that specific intent fails). If we accept this interpretation, the CFJ is very easy and the brightline is clear for future cases. That said, since I'm still a new(er) player I don't know much historical precedent to inform this argument. Considering that shortcutting seems to be a long-honored tradition from well before I arrived, I'd be happy to consider historical evidence if someone could direct me. -grok
