Re: spoon-business: CFJ

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

On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> On 2/14/2002 I objected to the Administrator's earlier statement that
> proposal 377 was on a ballot.  I contend that now, as per r129, the
> game state is altered to a state that doesn't include that statement,
> since it was objected to.

Since r129 didn't exist in the current form at that time, I could
counter-contend that your statement cannot have an effect (since it would
be governed by the then-extant version of r129).

Failing that, though, per the current version of r129, "the usual methods
for determining the current rules and game state shall apply." And since
your subject contains the phrase "CFJ" I choose to believe that you do in
fact intend for your statement to be a CFJ.

So... CFJ 430, assigned to Iain.

...dave