| Revision as of 16:06, 8 October 2009 editCool Hand Luke (talk | contribs)14,522 edits →Blessed break: Note, I will still be active on the Lapsed Pacifist case← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:08, 8 October 2009 edit undoMBisanz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users126,668 edits cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| :We'll have to kick it to one of the the courts of appeal then, like how Judge ] decided the celebrated ''Alcoa'' antitrust case. | :We'll have to kick it to one of the the courts of appeal then, like how Judge ] decided the celebrated ''Alcoa'' antitrust case. | ||
| :Oh, wait. ] '']'' 15:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC) | :Oh, wait. ] '']'' 15:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::If only old 28 U.S.C. 321, (date omitted), 16 Stat. 44 at Ch. XXII, §2, (1869) was still valid law (I'm sure you know how hard it is to find the date of USC sections that were superseded so long ago they aren't even in the current notes). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:08, 8 October 2009
Blessed break
I'm going to be away until I feel some desire to resolve petty disputes among brittle people with no sense of proportion, only to be rewarded by constant accusations of malfeasance, endless criticism, and potential unindemnified civil liability. This break will be indefinite. Cool Hand Luke 15:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Note, I will still be active on the Lapsed Pacifist case, so if any issues come up, please tell me. I just don't want to edit on a daily basis for a while. Cool Hand Luke 16:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Quorum
I couldn't resist myself in pointing out that with only eight active arbs, the committee is failing the quorum rules of the US SC which requires 50% plus one of the number of seats to be present to hold court. Happily Arbcom is exempt from such niceties. MBisanz 15:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- We'll have to kick it to one of the the courts of appeal then, like how Judge Learned Hand decided the celebrated Alcoa antitrust case.
- Oh, wait. Cool Hand Luke 15:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- If only old 28 U.S.C. 321, (date omitted), 16 Stat. 44 at Ch. XXII, §2, (1869) was still valid law (I'm sure you know how hard it is to find the date of USC sections that were superseded so long ago they aren't even in the current notes). MBisanz 18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)