woggle wrote:
> On 9/16/09 5:12 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> NoV: Justiciar woggle violated Rule 2158 (Power=2) by failing to
>> assign a panel to 2670a.
>
> I contest this. Arguments: I reasonably believed (and still believe)
> that CFJ 2670a does not exist and therefore I am not required or
> permi
Pavitra wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> NoV: Justiciar woggle violated Rule 2158 (Power=2) by failing to
>> assign a panel to 2670a.
> Was that the one that was recently ruled not to have been assigned even
> though the panel attempted to judge it? If so, UNAWARE would seem
> appropriate.
I pointe
Ed Murphy wrote:
> NoV: Justiciar woggle violated Rule 2158 (Power=2) by failing to
> assign a panel to 2670a.
Was that the one that was recently ruled not to have been assigned even
though the panel attempted to judge it? If so, UNAWARE would seem
appropriate.
signature.asc
Description: OpenP
3 matches
Mail list logo
