Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: RFJ

[Antonio <zagarna@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 10:21:28 -0500, Joel Uckelman
<uckelman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote :

>Quoth "Harrison, Andrew":
>> That's a bit much really. I would have thought it was perfectly clear that
>> it was invalid. So much so infact that I would not have said it needed an
>> RFJ in the first place. Actions are deemed to be taken when they arrive in
>> the public forum. Therefore Poulenc ruled before he was recused. Therefore
>> the recusal didn't apply. Anyone disagree?
>> 
>> --
>> The Kid
>
>Yeah, that's what I thought, too. Otherwise we would have needed RFJs for 
>all of those numbering mistakes I've made since October.

Well, the point is: what happenes if BLMP submits a ruling for that
RFJ? we dont have rules that expressley prohibit the answering of dead
RFJs, after all he has been officially appointed by me to answer it.
At the time I also could not recuse him, as the rules only let me
recuse people after three days.
I'll do it now.
-- 

zagarna

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com