On 11/13/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > comex wrote: > >There is no reasonable interpretation of "Beverly" that would cause it > >to not be about the possibility of a rule-defined action. > > I interpret it as nonsense.
I CFJ, barring Zefram, on the statement: * CFJ 1794 is an inquiry case on the possibility of a rule-defined action Arguments: There is no reasonable interpretation of "Beverly" that would cause it to not be about the possibility of a rule-defined action. Evidence: CFJ 1794's statement: * It is possible for Beverly to deregister.
