Mark Walsh on Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:17:04 -0600 (CST)

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

RE: [s-d] Re: Peter submits p339 - Defendant's argument.

On: 1/15/06 4:28:59 PM Peter sent:
> Subject: [s-d] Re: Peter submits p339 - Defendant's argument.
> "Mark Walsh" <flutesultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > I trust that posting a reply to your submission was the
> > proper way to offer the defendant's arguments.
> > I couldn't figure out a way to amend the initial CFI
> > to include my arguments with the original motion.
> Arguments aren't really a formal part of the CFI under the current
> rules. (They were for some time while I was here, but it was kind of
> silly to have the official arguments there, while the plaintiff,
> defendant, and others continued to discuss and make good arguments all
> through the voting process.)
> The point of the arguments is just to try to influence others in
> accordance with your opinion on the matter, and everyone is encouraged
> to submit what they think and why they vote the way they do.
> Peter C.
Ok. I see that.
Let's hope active (or even inactive) players jump in and opine.
A CFI (IMHO) really cut's to the pith of the game, and might
offer some insight into the way players think and respond to a
given set of extant conditions and the Rules that govern them. 
The Rules really are the game (subgames not withstanding).

I thought I had something more profound to offer, but it fled.


"The United States is a nation of laws;
poorly written and randomly enforced."
-- Frank Zappa

spoon-discuss mailing list