Ian Kelly wrote:
>I think that the arguments were clearly apropos to the CFJ, and that
>the physical ordering is irrelevant. On the other hand, the CotC
>apparently isn't currently required to reproduce the arguments at all,
>so I shouldn't complain too loudly.
My policy is to reproduce arguments
root wrote:
> On the other hand, the CotC
> apparently isn't currently required to reproduce the arguments at all,
> so I shouldn't complain too loudly.
Oh, yuck. That's definitely a bug, not a feature. (Still need to re-read
the new judgement system a couple times to know where to fix, I'm se
On 10/27/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root, since you complain about burdens on judges, how about
> helping to set a precedent of minimal demands of evidence
> (again, I recognize that the ordering of the arguments and
> CFJ were an honest mistake, but the custom of considering the
comex wrote:
> I support this, for the quoted reason (and suggest that the appeal
> panel remand it). I reproduce the arguments in question in full
> below, but I suggest you read the entire thread, titled "Reckless", in
> which I tried to initiate the case.
I'm sorry comex, but you screwed up h
4 matches
Mail list logo
