This morning Isaac decided to spam post on all my markets lying about me. I pondered for a bit why someone would do that. I came up with some potential reasons but none definitive of course.

Were his feelings hurt because I dismissed him the other day with a single word?

Maybe seeing his father's belt triggered some bad childhood memories.

Or perhaps his favourite cuckold website got shut down.

Is there a chance that his coworkers found out about his latex fetish?

Could it be that someone saw him peeing in his basement?

Was it his mom who saw him peeing in his basement?

Did the experience embarrass or arouse him?

All quite probable causes for Isaac soy rage posting at me. Regardless, his posts gave inspiration to this market and I think he will appreciate me emulating him a bit by posting this market on his markets as well.

If the CA fish and game code no longer contains a definition of fish, or does not exist, it seems this should resolve no?

 Correct. If the name of the document changes, I'll use what's in the new document. But if it goes away entirely, this resolves NO.

So according to this case, bees are fish under CA law. But according to the Supreme Court, fish are not tangible objects in US v. Yates (2015). Therefore it appears to be that bees are not tangible objects

 Are court decisions subject to the transitive property?

California Supreme Court: We Don’t Think Bees Are Fish – Lowering the Bar

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/who-knew-bees-are-fish-2022-06-02/

Resolves according to whether California's Fish and Game Code still defines bees as fish.

(This market is about what's written in the code, not about what a court finds is enforceable.)

Related questions

Related questions