DIS: Re: BUS: I thought we fixed this

2012-05-16 Thread ais523
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 02:11 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote: > —This Space "IAIIDTDI?" For Rent Translates as "I Ask If I Do Therefore Do I?", I guess. -- ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I thought we fixed this

2012-05-15 Thread comexk
That was always only a clarification in my view... ratification does not change the past, so it does not change whether someone "breached the specified rule". Sent from my iPhone On May 15, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > The other fix for this situation (Rule 1551/14: "... ratification .

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I thought we fixed this

2012-05-15 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, 15 May 2012, Ed Murphy wrote: > > If the statement is required to be in the CFJ, doesn't it "arise from > > the case itself"? The "not arising from the case itself" clause was > > specifically put in to block "this statement is false" wins. > > > > Actually, isn't Rule 2358 contradictor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I thought we fixed this

2012-05-15 Thread Ed Murphy
omd wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Actually, isn't Rule 2358 contradictory in that any hypothetical situation mentioned arises from the case itself, because the case is what raises them? indeed, I can't think of anything "arising from the case itself" that does n

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I thought we fixed this

2012-05-15 Thread Ed Murphy
G. wrote: On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM, John Smith wrote: I CfJ on the statement "It is illegal for a player to announce intent to use Ratification Without Objection to ratify a document whose contents are identical to this sentence, without also specifyi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I thought we fixed this

2012-05-14 Thread omd
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Actually, isn't Rule 2358 contradictory in that any hypothetical > situation mentioned arises from the case itself, because the case is > what raises them? indeed, I can't think of anything "arising from the case itself" that does not also "o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I thought we fixed this

2012-05-14 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM, John Smith wrote: > > I CfJ on the statement "It is illegal for a player to announce intent to > > use Ratification Without Objection to ratify a document whose contents are > > identical to this sentence, without also specify

DIS: Re: BUS: I thought we fixed this

2012-05-14 Thread omd
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM, John Smith wrote: > I CfJ on the statement "It is illegal for a player to announce intent to use > Ratification Without Objection to ratify a document whose contents are > identical to this sentence, without also specifying a reason for ratifying > it." > > Arg