Gavin Doig on 15 Feb 2002 15:26:34 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

> > 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?
No. Rule 129 makes everything legal, unless you object to something, in which case the thing to which you objected doesn't get *made* legal. The point I was making is that Glotmorf seems to think that if something isn't made legal by rule 129, it isn't legal at all, which is not the case - it simply retains its original legality (or lack of).

> So, how do you determine whether a statement
> was illegal in order to not make it legal?
In the case where someone objects to something, a CFJ would determine whether or not what the statement they objected to referred to was legal or not.


Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at

Win a ski trip!