On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 13:11 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Just in case:
>
> If proposal 6122 did create a new rule, then I cause said new rule to
> amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank' by means of
> rule 2243.
And I suppose the upshot of all this is, if you're going to run a scam
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 11:09 -0400, comex wrote:
> does. The proposal took effect but was unauthorized to make any Rule
> Changes so did nothing.
No, I think it didn't take effect, but nevertheless was not prevented
from taking effect. There isn't a contradiction there.
--
ais523
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> CFJ: Proposal 6122 has taken effect.
>>>
>>> Caller's arguments: Per Rule 2034(c) as amended by Proposal 6139, the
>>> resolution of Proposals 6121 through 6139 constituted a self-rati
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:09 AM, comex wrote:
> The proposal took effect but was unauthorized to make any Rule
> Changes so did nothing.
Actually, if we interpret "not prevented from taking effect" liberally
and require that the proposal wasn't a no-op, we're in an interesting
situation. The pr
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> CFJ: Proposal 6122 has taken effect.
>>
>> Caller's arguments: Per Rule 2034(c) as amended by Proposal 6139, the
>> resolution of Proposals 6121 through 6139 constituted a self-ratifying
>> claim that Proposal 6122 has not
Ed Murphy wrote:
> CFJ: Proposal 6122 has taken effect.
>
> Caller's arguments: Per Rule 2034(c) as amended by Proposal 6139, the
> resolution of Proposals 6121 through 6139 constituted a self-ratifying
> claim that Proposal 6122 has not been prevented from taking effect.
Gratuitous arguments:
6 matches
Mail list logo
