comex wrote:
>Cripes. What's the point of that other than to confuse?
It makes a difference if the vote collector is not first-class.
It used to be that a partnership that was not eligible to vote on a
dependent action could act "with 2 support" by getting votes from only
two first-class players.
On Dec 20, 2007 3:35 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 1:30 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually, the mechanism has changed. To act "with 2 support" you
> > need *three* votes of SUPPORT. You, as vote collector, are no longer
> > disqualified from voting, an
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Zefram wrote:
> I note that this judgement of CFJ 1831 means that the case doesn't
> properly address the matter that was originally in controversy.
> I disagree with Goethe's reasoning, because I think that a URL on its
> own does not constitute any vote at all. I agree wit
Taral wrote:
>As per appellate instruction, I judge FALSE.
I note that this judgement of CFJ 1831 means that the case doesn't
properly address the matter that was originally in controversy.
I disagree with Goethe's reasoning, because I think that a URL on its
own does not constitute any vote at al
4 matches
Mail list logo
