On Wed, May 23, 2007 10:41 am, David Gerard wrote:
I woulda called it obvious myself, and I believe
another arb said the
same thing in rejecting the previous case.
They're different, but it's not something to discuss here anymore.
As for the rest, you pretty much avoided my
question by essentially
saying
"if it does violate, it violates. If it doesn't, it doesn't." Well,
yeah. The issue is when you have two separate opinions.
Not really - it's whether votes override policy.
Yeah, but if the policy is misinterpreted, then what?
-Jeff
--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.