On Jan 12, 2008 12:26 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since the rule in question hasn't changed at all since a month and a
> half before this case arose, I think it would be more accurate to call
> them the "imagined version" and the "actual version".
The whole "reckless" thing has chang
On Jan 12, 2008 9:44 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/01/2008, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ah, so you believed your statement to not violate the version of the
> > rule you saw before. But then one could say that your belief didn't
> > apply to the current version.
>
> Again, "
On 10/01/2008, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, so you believed your statement to not violate the version of the
> rule you saw before. But then one could say that your belief didn't
> apply to the current version.
Again, "if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did
not vio
On 1/10/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, because after reading that rule my mind stored a mental image of
> it's general concept:
>
> "Don't deliberately lie."
Ah, so you believed your statement to not violate the version of the
rule you saw before. But then one could say that your
On Jan 10, 2008 10:30 AM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/9/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > well, until you posted your judgment I did honestly believe that my
> > actions were not in violation of R2149, largely because I hadn't
> > reviewed the rule in quite some time and ha
On 1/9/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> well, until you posted your judgment I did honestly believe that my
> actions were not in violation of R2149, largely because I hadn't
> reviewed the rule in quite some time and had forgotten exactly what it
> said.
How can you believe that you a
Zefram wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
I appeal this decision.
There were two appealable decisions there: verdict and sentence.
You must specify which one you are appealing.
I already entered the appeal into the database. On the assumption
that e'll initiate it with the proper specification, I'l
On Jan 9, 2008 8:32 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/9/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As an argument for my appeal I suggest that due to not carefully
> > reading the rules, I was blissfully unaware that my sarcastic
> > registration of Futuremyartug was in violation of R
On 1/9/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As an argument for my appeal I suggest that due to not carefully
> reading the rules, I was blissfully unaware that my sarcastic
> registration of Futuremyartug was in violation of R2149.
* UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably b
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Should the appeals panel not overturn this judgment this message shall
> serve as my apology.
I would argue that, while clever, this statement is not "explaining eir
error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement" and thus
is not an apolog
10 matches
Mail list logo
