Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A messy business

2010-11-22 Thread ais523
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 17:25 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 10-11-22 05:08 PM, omd wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Sean Hunt > > wrote: > >>> I object to both and favor this CFJ. > >> > >> Why do you object? I am not trying to raise the II for personal gain. > > > > Because I honestly do

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A messy business

2010-11-22 Thread Sean Hunt
On 10-11-22 05:08 PM, omd wrote: On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: I object to both and favor this CFJ. Why do you object? I am not trying to raise the II for personal gain. Because I honestly don't think it's a very complicated case. But if there's a reason that I'm missin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A messy business

2010-11-22 Thread omd
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> I object to both and favor this CFJ. > > Why do you object? I am not trying to raise the II for personal gain. Because I honestly don't think it's a very complicated case. But if there's a reason that I'm missing why it is, tell me and I'll re

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A messy business

2010-11-22 Thread Sean Hunt
On 10-11-22 05:03 PM, omd wrote: On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: I favor this CFJ and also set its II to 1. I intend, without 3 objections, to set its II to 2, and I intend, without 2 objections, to set its II to 3. I object to both and favor this CFJ. Why do you object? I

DIS: Re: BUS: A messy business

2010-11-22 Thread Sean Hunt
On 10-11-22 03:37 PM, Alex Smith wrote: I call for judgement on the statement «It would be illegal for me to publish a public message consisting only of the following text: "I publish the following Notice of Violation: ais523 violated/is currently violating the power-2 rule 2230, committing the C

DIS: Re: BUS: A messy business

2010-11-22 Thread omd
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > Clearly, in the hypothetical inside the CFJ, the statement "ais523 > violated/is currently violating the power-2 rule 2230, committing the > Class-4 Crime of Libel, by publishing this NoV." is messy, thus > incorrect. First of all, I think this

DIS: Re: BUS: A messy business

2010-11-22 Thread omd
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > Rule 2230 makes it illegal to knowingly issue an NoV with incorrect > information. (This is not quite the same thing as issuing an NoV with > knowingly incorrect information; you can know you've issued the NoV even > without knowing whether the