Re: [s-b] [s-d] [change] Ballot for nweek 160 - 03 Nov 2009.

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:30:35 -0500
> From: wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-b] [s-d] [change] Ballot for nweek 160 - 03 Nov 2009.
> 
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Charles Walker
> <charles.w.walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I contest this and initiate a criminal case from it, requesting double
> > rests because lack of knowledge on matters directly related to the
> > rules is an especially heinous offense.
> 
> Gratuitous arguments: Marr's public statement was an apology that he
> gets voting wrong, which quoted his (non-public) ballot that contained
> the erroneous vote of "NOT ELIGIBLE".


Evidence: Regardless of any recent communication, Marr965 sent a message to spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx on the 17 October 2009 stating that e had read the ruleset.

 

Arguments: Marr965's recent messages have shown e has not read the rules on voting, the part of which that is relevant to the messages sent having not changed since e supposedly read the ruleset. This indicated that the original claim of ruleset reading was a lie and violates rule 81.

 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/buy/
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business