Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1719: result FALSE

2007-08-16 Thread Peekee
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Peekee wrote: I support this proposal (in that I want to become a player again). You made your bed, you must lie in it. If comex hadn't deregistered you, I was pondering doing so. I'd have done it in conditional form so that I didn't risk deregistering my

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1719: result FALSE

2007-08-16 Thread Zefram
Peekee wrote: >I support this proposal (in that I want to become a player again). You made your bed, you must lie in it. If comex hadn't deregistered you, I was pondering doing so. I'd have done it in conditional form so that I didn't risk deregistering myself. -zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1719: result FALSE

2007-08-16 Thread Peekee
I support this proposal (in that I want to become a player again). I submit the following proposal: make Peekee a player AI=1 Upon the adoption of this proposal, the following actions occur in order: 1. Rule 869 is amended to remove the sentence "E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1719: result FALSE

2007-08-15 Thread comex
On Wednesday 15 August 2007, Zefram wrote: > comex wrote: > >Rule 869 specifies that "to register" and "to become a player" are > >synonymous. > > Not as I read it. Murphy messed it up a bit in eir switchification, > so that it's nonsensical in places if taken literally. I think the > most reason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1719: result FALSE

2007-08-15 Thread Zefram
comex wrote: >Rule 869 specifies that "to register" and "to become a player" are >synonymous. Not as I read it. Murphy messed it up a bit in eir switchification, so that it's nonsensical in places if taken literally. I think the most reasonable interpretation is the way that it was defined in t

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1719: result FALSE

2007-08-15 Thread comex
On Wednesday 15 August 2007, Zefram wrote: > Actually it would just make things worse when we discovered after the > fact that e had been deregistered some time ago. If the ruling had gone > that way, we could probably have traced you through the IP address in > Peekee's web server log. This would

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1719: result FALSE

2007-08-15 Thread Zefram
comex wrote: >Now that the courts have ruled that the sender of the message neither >deregistered nor violated Rule 2149 (in which cases the impossibility of >identifying the sender would protect em), Actually it would just make things worse when we discovered after the fact that e had been dere