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

["Orc In A Spacesuit" <orcinaspacesuit@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: "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

I am badgering no-one.  My repeat of the word FALSE is a response to my 
stupid error of saying TRUE at first, and Dave's subsequent saying that I 
couldn't change my mind (which would have been true in the past).  And in 
the completly seperate email in response to bd, I honestly thought he agreed 
with me, since he had made absolutly no statement disagreeing with me, and I 
assumed (as Wonko did) that he had been misled by my mistake.  And in the 
completly seperate email to McGee, I was aware that McGee may be in 
disagreement with me, as I stated in said email, and I just wanted to make 
sure that he hadn't been misled by the stupid mistake I made.  If he had 
given the slightest analysis, even just saying "I agree with Orc/bd", that 
wouldn't have been an issue.

And you include my asking for analysis.  Asking for analysis would seem to 
be my duty as an Appellate Judge; we are supposed to agree on the correct 
interpertation, and either the interpertation is obvious and agreed upon by 
all, or someone's not seeing all of the picture correctly.  And if we don't 
all agree, then we should discuss the issue until we do.

Orc in a Spacesuit

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

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