Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 123

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Gabriel Vistica <gvistica@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Argument: I would point out to the appellate court hearing this case
> that, while the wiki may not yet have been updated, Proposal 2043 passed last
> nweek
>
> (172), amending Rule 2. I also point out that the actions of teucer, which
> caused
>
> the currently-appealed CFI 123 to be filed, occurred on Winday of this nweek
> (173). Therefore, the
>
> amendments were in effect at the time the aforementioned actions took place and
> teucer's name changed back when e attempted the ILLEGAL name change.

I did not attempt any name changes whatsoever.

Well, I did, and they're the subject of the now-resolved CFI 122 (they
all succeeded, unless anybody feels like appealing Murphy's judgement
of that one), but they came before the actions that are the subject of
CFI 123.

Furthermore, ILLEGAL does not mean INEFFECTIVE, so if my behavior had
actually been a name change, I would merely be vulnerable to
ass-kicking for it rather than having it fail.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss