Oh gosh, I'd completely forgot about that. If anyone else forgets the context, Rule 105 said (and still says) that "A repealed rule... MUST be reenacted with the same ID number" - i.e. all repealed rules are guilty of not being reenacted.
If nobody's up for rephrasing it, I think we should at least open up blot ownership, Finger Pointing and the Cold Hand of Justice to non-person entities, so that the criminal lowlife rules can be brought to justice. -twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, June 16, 2019 4:18 AM, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 23:01, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > Also, CFJ: "Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105." This is not really > > relevant in the scheme of things, I just want it to show up in G.'s CFJ > > history to bewilder future historians. > > Did this ever get judged? I can't find any more mention of it. Jason > Cobb's suggestion of Agora owning blots reminded me of it.
