On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Taral wrote:
>I still have no idea about this CFJ...
I suggest that you examine the purported judge's arguments in CFJ 1623.
You're not necessarily bound to judge the same, because if you judge to
the contrary then CFJ 1623 hasn't really been judged. But if you find
the reasoning good then you can adopt that and confirm the judgement.
If you find fault with the reasoning then responding to it would be a
good way to draft your judgement.
That's not my point. I have no record of the numerical assignment, so
I don't know what the statement is, nor what arguments were submitted.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
