CALL FOR JUDGEMENT 26 (Oerjan) I first include parts of a message from The Neat Speaker, with my comments: > PROPOSAL 435 (Alexx) Mon, 30 Aug 93 > > Spelling Errors > > Spelling errors do not invalidate rules if there is no > ambiguity in meaning. > > Must be voted on by: Mon, 3 Sep 93 > > Votes: > Alexx : FOR > Dave Bowen : FOR > David Nicol : FOR > Jim Shea : AGAINST Oerjan : AGAINST > PASSES 3-1. > > Scoring: > Rule 312: > Alexx (25+1 = 26) > Dave Bowen (23+1 = 24) > David Nicol (35+1 = 36) > Jim Shea (6+1 = 7) Oerjan (14+1 = 15) > Rule 394: > Alexx (26+1 = 27) > Rule 423: > Alexx (27+2 = 29) Alexx (27+1 = 28) > A lot deleted .. > Leaving the scores at: > > Alexx 33 > David Nicol 29 > Dave Bowen 28 > David Cogen 24 > Ronald Kunne 18 > Oerjan 18 > Deb and Bob 17 > Karl Anderson 16 > Jim Shea 11 > Vlad 10 > Michael Norrish 8 > Kevin Watkins 0 > Sai 0 > Wes 0 > Joe Lindsay 0 > The Ed Blevins 0 > Blob <2119737@hydra.maths.unsw.edu.au> 0 > **Andy Latto 0 > **Eric Scheirer 0 > **Richard M Vickery 0 STATEMENT: The above scores are in error and the correct scores should be: Alexx 32 David Nicol 29 Dave Bowen 28 David Cogen 24 Ronald Kunne 18 Oerjan 19 Deb and Bob 17 Karl Anderson 16 Jim Shea 11 Vlad 10 Michael Norrish 8 Kevin Watkins 0 Sai 0 Wes 0 Joe Lindsay 0 The Ed Blevins 0 Blob <2119737@hydra.maths.unsw.edu.au> 0 Andy Latto 0 Eric Scheirer 0 Richard M Vickery 0 JUDGE David Nicol > Judgement: TRUE > > Justification: > > Barring any argument to the contrary having crossed my screen, I see no > reasons to doubt Oerjan's claim that his vote was not tallied in with the > other votes on this proposal.