[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] less judges

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/28/03 at 8:01 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>Oh, and bd, I did screw up the judgement of that CFI.  I meant FALSE, and
>changed my ruling as such.  I suggest you do the same.

On 3/31/03 at 3:00 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>>On CFI 1411, I rule true.
>>
>>
>>Anything McGee.
>
>Just making sure:  You know that I goofed up, and meant to rule FALSE,
>right?  FALSE is the ruling that agrees with the lengthy analysis I gave,
>saying that things sent things sent to a private forum are indeed private.
>
>Well, just making sure; I don't know just what you think of the CFI.
>
>Just a thought I've had for a few days, to the general public:  If you
>want
>things to be a certain way, but it's not what the rules really say, a CFI
>is
>not the way to change things.  A CFI is meant to determine what the rules
>ARE, not what they SHOULD be or you WANT them to be.  If you want change,
>make a proposal.

On 3/31/03 at 4:53 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>Now, I'd like to reiterate that it is not us _Ruling_ on the CFI; it is us
>_Agreeing_ on a ruling for the CFI, which the Upper House does the actual
>ruliing on.  Since it is possible to change my mind (to correct for
>errors,
>as in this case, or be conviced of another interpertaion), I can actually
>agree with someone that the correct interpertation is FALSE.
>
>FALSE FALSE FALSE.
>
>And since we're talking about the ruling, I would love to hear any
>analysis
>on part of anyone else as to why it would be true.  As far as I know, I've
>disproved every iota of evidence saying it's true, while providing plenty
>saying it's false.

Please stop badgering the judges.

						Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a cyber-anthropologist's blog
http://ix.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

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