On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Zefram wrote: > I note that this judgement of CFJ 1831 means that the case doesn't > properly address the matter that was originally in controversy. > I disagree with Goethe's reasoning, because I think that a URL on its > own does not constitute any vote at all. I agree with the judgement of > FALSE, however, so appeal is not appropriate. New CFJ, anyone?
That's what a concurring opinion is for (it just passed). Appeal away! -Goethe
