Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A future proposal

[Eric Gerlach <egerlach@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:59:34PM -0500, Gavin Doig wrote:
> > Now we're back to your fallacy that actions aren't legal unless they're made legal by rule 129. Aside from the fact that the admin is only one of the usual methods (and one that can be and has been overriden by CFJs), which means it's not required, it's not illegal. Rule 129 doesn't make what the admin said illegal if you object; it merely doesn't make it legal if it wasn't. If it was legal anyway, your objection has no effect on that.
> 
> Let me get this straight... Rule 129/2 only makes things legal if they
> are legal?
> 
> So, how do you determine whether a statement was illegal in order to not
> make it legal?

CFJ methinks.  Isn't that the point of them?

Bean