On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Zefram wrote: > is nonsensical". I suggest that BobTHJ was correct in CFJ 1799, that > "nkep..." is nonsensical, and that therefore the judge of CFJ 1805a need > not be troubled by any alleged meaning for "nkep...". How odd: if it is indeed nonsensical, as you suggest, then UNDECIDABLE is appropriate. So, as has been frowned on in the past, you are attempting to overrule a judge's choice between appropriate judgements.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
