Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA CFJ

2008-08-05 Thread comex
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:14 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Not directly. Case in point: if the AFO were obligated via a FINE to >> destroy one of its notes, would every single member of its basis would >> be individually

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA CFJ

2008-08-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, comex wrote: > By the way, I think it's debatable whether there is even an inequity: > everyone in the AAA has an equal chance to harvest the CFJs that I > created. That doesn't matter, to find inequity you need some party (to call the case) and a judge to agree that there ex

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA CFJ

2008-08-05 Thread Taral
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:14 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not directly. Case in point: if the AFO were obligated via a FINE to > destroy one of its notes, would every single member of its basis would > be individually obligated to also destroy one of eir notes? Ah, you're quite right. E

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA CFJ

2008-08-05 Thread comex
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:13 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Rule 1742 says: "Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with >> that contract." There is no language to the effect that non-parties >> to a contract shall

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA CFJ

2008-08-05 Thread Taral
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:13 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rule 1742 says: "Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with > that contract." There is no language to the effect that non-parties > to a contract shall act in accordance with a contract. Therefore, > although the AFO's R1

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA CFJ

2008-08-05 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:13 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rule 1742 says: "Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with > that contract." There is no language to the effect that non-parties > to a contract shall act in accordance with a contract. Therefore, > although the AFO's R17

DIS: Re: BUS: AAA CFJ

2008-08-05 Thread comex
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I call for judgment on the following statement: "The devolution of the > AFO's obligations onto comex means that the AFO is in breach of the > AAA agreement if comex calls CFJs for the clear purpose of allowing > the CFJ t