Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 2154-55

2008-09-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Pavitra wrote: Quite possibly that would violate R101. >>> If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing >> That's why the wording of R101 clause is as it is; if you're told "you >> can re-initiate on the same subject next week" then you still have >> a reasonable expectation

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 2154-55

2008-09-20 Thread Sgeo
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: >> 2008/9/20 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Quite possibly that would violate R101. >>> -- >>> ais523 >>> >> If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing > > That's why the wording of R1

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 2154-55

2008-09-20 Thread Ian Kelly
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/9/20 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Quite possibly that would violate R101. >> -- >> ais523 >> > > If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing No more so than did the 5-day waiting period of the Brady Bill violate the cons

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 2154-55

2008-09-20 Thread ais523
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 16:27 -0500, Pavitra wrote: > >>> Quite possibly that would violate R101. > >> If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing > > That's why the wording of R101 clause is as it is; if you're told "you > > can re-initiate on the same subject next week" then you still have > > a reason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 2154-55

2008-09-20 Thread Pavitra
>>> Quite possibly that would violate R101. >> If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing > That's why the wording of R101 clause is as it is; if you're told "you > can re-initiate on the same subject next week" then you still have > a reasonable expectation of resolution with minor delay (but still i

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 2154-55

2008-09-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2008/9/20 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Quite possibly that would violate R101. >> -- >> ais523 >> > If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing That's why the wording of R101 clause is as it is; if you're told "you can re-initiate on the same subject next

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 2154-55

2008-09-20 Thread Pavitra
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/9/20 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Quite possibly that would violate R101. >> -- >> ais523 >> > > If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing And, as I was persuaded of when I asked about excess CFJs, if that should ever

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 2154-55

2008-09-20 Thread Elliott Hird
2008/9/20 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Quite possibly that would violate R101. > -- > ais523 > If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 2154-55

2008-09-20 Thread ais523
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 22:04 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2008/9/20 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I judge 2154 TRUE and 2155 FALSE. > > > > Proto: The CotC can refuse any CFJ regarding rule 104 or the First Speaker. Quite possibly that would violate R101. -- ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 2154-55

2008-09-20 Thread Elliott Hird
2008/9/20 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I judge 2154 TRUE and 2155 FALSE. > Proto: The CotC can refuse any CFJ regarding rule 104 or the First Speaker.