Re: DIS: CFJ 1125

2008-10-09 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, comex wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:46 -0400, comex wrote: >>> Issue 1 - "clear indication" >> Dependent actions don't require a "clear indication" nowadays, but need >> to be "previously unambiguously des

Re: DIS: CFJ 1125

2008-10-09 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:46 -0400, comex wrote: >>> Issue 1 - "clear indication" >> Dependent actions don't require a "clear indication" nowadays, but need >> to be "previously unambigu

Re: DIS: CFJ 1125

2008-10-09 Thread comex
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:46 -0400, comex wrote: >> Issue 1 - "clear indication" > Dependent actions don't require a "clear indication" nowadays, but need > to be "previously unambiguously described". Quite possibly this makes a > d

Re: DIS: CFJ 1125

2008-10-09 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:46 -0400, comex wrote: >> Issue 1 - "clear indication" > Dependent actions don't require a "clear indication" nowadays, but need > to be "previously unambiguously described". Quite possibly this makes a > d

Re: DIS: CFJ 1125

2008-10-09 Thread ais523
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:46 -0400, comex wrote: > Issue 1 - "clear indication" Dependent actions don't require a "clear indication" nowadays, but need to be "previously unambiguously described". Quite possibly this makes a difference. -- ais523

DIS: CFJ 1125

2008-10-09 Thread comex
Before my assignment to CFJ 2211, I had heard of Steve's Spam Scam only indirectly. For discussion, here is a copy of it, dug up from Zefram's archives: == CFJ 1125 Rule 1883 has not been rep