Re: [spoon-discuss] Refresh Prop again

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/11/02 at 2:21 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>>>> That takes out G.1.  There's a reason for G.1.  It doesn't allow the
>>> creation
>>>> of a society of unknown/unknowable status if the proposal that does so
>>> screws
>>>> up and leaves something out.  Like, you know, whatcha call...last
>nweek.
>>>
>>> But G.1. doesn't do anything. All it does is give people a method by
>which
>>> to do something, which they could do anyway. It's entirely redundant,
>and
>>> doesn't stop people from doing anything.
>>
>> Earlier CFIs have stated that explicit definition of a method is
>sufficient to
>> implicitly exclude other non-explicitly permitted methods.  If
>404notfound
>> would cease being not found, we might even get a ruling to that effect.
>
>Which CFI's would you be speaking of? I admit that the explicit definition
>of a *non-proposal* method is enought to implicitly exclude other,
>unmentioned *non-proposal* methods, but since the rules declare that the
>effects of a proposal take place, then those effects will take place unless
>a rule which takes precedence SPECIFICALLY says that a proposal can't do
>that. All G.1. did was outline one way it could be done; it didn't say no
>other ways were possible.

So far I've got CFIs 305, 340 and 688.  I keep thinking there were more...

I've also seen an awful lot of CFIs with no judgments.  I think we need to decide if CFIs expire, in accordance with, say, the Statute of Limitations.  Though some of them I'd've liked to have seen rulings on...

						Glotmorf


_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss