potatojuic2

To Ryan or whatever HD admin is dealing with this:
When people bet on a question like this, they expect that when every major mainstream news source gives the same clear answer, that is the answer that will be used to settle this question. Cf. the following and tell me if there is a debate in the media:

BBC - Scandal-hit NY governor resigns - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7292235.stm
"New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has resigned, after being linked to a prostitution ring."

MSNBC - Spitzer resigns, capping stunning fall - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23572671
"Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in disgrace Wednesday after getting caught in a call-girl scandal that shattered his corruption-fighting, straight-arrow image, saying: "I cannot allow my private failings to disrupt the people's work."

ABC - Spitzer Quits But Other Public Figure May Be Linked to Escort Ring - http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4430558&page=1
"Despite two days of negotiations, Spitzer, with his wife by his side and top lawyer Ted Wells in the wings, resigned today without a deal with federal prosecutors."

New York Times - Spitzer Resigns, Citing Personal Failings http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/nyregion/12cnd-resign.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
"Gov. Eliot Spitzer, whose rise to political power as a fierce enforcer of ethics in public life was undone by revelations of his own involvement with prostitutes, resigned on Wednesday, becoming the first New York governor to leave office amid scandal in nearly a century."

Chicago Tribune - Eliot Spitzer resigns - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-eliot-spitzer-resigns,0,5251538.story
"Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the former self-described "steamroller" prosecutor whose political career was built on crusading campaigns against corporate wrong-doers, resigned today, two days after allegations surfaced that he had been a client of a high-priced prostitution service."


Al Jazeera - New York governor steps down - http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8BA47F5E-28EE-4BD2-8460-637B3549130B.htm
"Eliot Spitzer, the US Democratic governor of New York, has resigned following reports he had been a client of a prostitution ring."

I could obviously go on. If you claim the use of "resign" in all these articles from all these assorted media outlets is incorrect, you are not only rejecting the settlement method posted, and upon which this entire site is founded, but overturning the verdict of these "major mainstream news sources" based upon an interpretation of the word that is held by virtually no one but yourself, and several vocal proponents on this comment page.

To peterww:
He said he was resigning from the office of governor, as in he was doing it right then at the moment he was speaking. Of course he wouldn't use the past tense during the act itself. His resignation was occurring with that statement. Now that he has made it, he has resigned. While making it, he was resigning. This is becoming as poorly reasoned as arguments on the rest of the internet.

The disagreement about what specifically it means to resign is best settled in accordance with the: "Settlement rules: As reported by a major mainstream news source..." No one disputes that every major mainstream news source defines "resign" as doing what Spitzer has already done. People can argue all they want about what "resign" means in this context, but the MMNS seem to have it pretty much ironed out. ES resigned.

How anyone can pretend that counting Monday as the date of his resignation is reasonable is beyond me. Every headline states that he has resigned (past) or resigns (present). That should be enough, as settlement is by major news sources, not by a Hubdub editor's parochial interpretation of what "resignation" technically means. An interpretation which are, in this case, very much at odds with what is being reported everywhere. The date of Nixon's resignation is when he stated he was resigning, not when Ford was sworn in. Perhaps you can wait a few days to see if he rescinds his resignation, but the current settlement intent of this question is ludicrous.

In the context of this question I think 'some' is most reasonably interpreted as 'one or more'. Given the options 'all condemn', 'some but not all condemn', 'other' it seems most natural to consider 'one' fitting within 'some but not all'. I think this sort of issue is exactly what makes this question poor. That said, China has also condemned the launch:
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-02/disabled-us-satellite-reportedly-shot-down

Russia has condemned the attempt: http://www.newspedia.eu/news/16104/Russia+condemns+US+satellite+plan, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7248995.stm

The EU has been silent about it (try looking for an EU response).

I think that makes the answer clear. However, this question has obviously been poorly understood and, more importantly, poorly posed. The fluctuations in value over the best few days are indicative of people's uncertainty about how exactly the question will be interpreted for resolution.

I'd agree with ratel. The leader of one EU member state is pretty clearly not the EU, so all that remains to be resolved is whether all EU member states condemn it (a reasonable interpretation of the use of EU in the answer) or if the "head of the EU condemns" it (as kruijs points out, who this exactly is isn't clear). The head of foreign policy (under the failed constitution he would have been the Union Foreign Minister, I think) would be Javier Solana. There is of course the Council of the European Union and the President, but as the Union's authority is rather distributed, the Council adopting a resolution condemning the launch may be the most compelling, as that would suggest it was the whole EU speaking better than any of the other options.