Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ

["David E. Smith" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Alex Truelsen wrote:

> <defendant>
> Baron von Skippy.
> </defendant>
>
> -Whoa. I got everything you said up until that bit, even if I didn't
> necessarily agree with it, but, well, I'll put it simply. What did /I/ do? I
> didn't propose, I don't think, either of those rules, and I had nothing to
> do with the CFJ (280) in question. Can you please explain to me what's going
> on? Can someone else also explain to me what's going on?-

IIRC, in one of your previous rulings, your conclusion was basically "the
rules say one thing, but the game is more fun if we ignore that." By
naming you as defendant, you're ineligible to judge the present CFJ.

I suspect the plaintiff is engaging in a very limited form of
bench-stacking.

Pure speculation on my part, though.

...dave