On 6/27/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I honestly can't think of any corrections in the last couple years
outside of things that were caught immediately, the abortion scam
is the only potential candidate and I think all associated results
were challenged immediately.
Ok, what was t
I wrote:
> Also, if we so "corrected" illegally, surely time passed after
> the corrections, so now those corrections are similarly safe!
On further reflection, this would be a case of a rule conflicting
with (and claiming precedence over) itself, which if not quite
paradoxical is rather delightf
Murphy wrote:
> Hmm. If this is judged true, are there any other proposals that
> we "corrected" due to CFJs with implicit knock-on effects, when
> in fact we should have stuck with the originally-announced result
> due to R2034?
I honestly can't think of any corrections in the last couple years
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Hmm. If this is judged true, are there any other proposals that
>we "corrected" due to CFJs with implicit knock-on effects, when
>in fact we should have stuck with the originally-announced result
>due to R2034?
I'm pretty sure there are none since the beginning of this year.
We'
== CFJ 1690 ==
Caller's Arguments:
A challenge should be direct and specific to
a proposal, or at least specific to the precise votes being challenged,
to prevent the R2034 challenge limit clock from expiring. It is not enough
to cha
5 matches
Mail list logo
