spoon-business: Judgement on 136/0

[Glenn Overby II <guardcaptain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--PREFACE--

The Administrator writes:

>First off, a massive apology.
><snip>
>(It's Christmas time, and I work in retail. Those of you who have done
>this will hopefully at least understand the source of my pain. :)

My second, seasonal job is in retail.  Your apology is accepted, and probably 
unnecessary in any case.

--JUDGEMENT FOLLOWS--

The Administrator writes:

>On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, [iso-8859-1] Jörg Rathlev wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> \begin{CFJ}
>> No rule 235/0 ever existed. The rule entitled "Statute of Limitation"
>> still exists.
>> \end{CFJ}
>
>136/0, assigned to Octagon.

Taking the second sentence first...Rule 129/0, Statute of Limitation, was created 
in accordance with the Rules of B Nomic upon the passage of Proposal 117/0 at 
the end of nweek1.  There has been no effective subsequent action to repeal or 
modify that Rule in any manner recognized by the current Rules of B Nomic.  
Therefore, the rule (129/0) entitled "Statute of Limitation" still exists.

Taking the first sentence second...No Proposal creating a Rule 235/0 has ever 
been passed in accordance with the Rules of B Nomic.  Therefore, within the 
constraints of B Nomic, no Rule 235/0 has ever existed.

I judge TRUE on all clauses of this Call for Judgement.

Octagon