On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >> I'm confused. You appear to be accepting the appellant's argument >> that a URL on its own is not a vote, but asserting that the >> "objection" on the web page does constitute a vote. This would lead >> to reversing to TRUE, not to affirming. > > The web page contains both "objection" and "support". My opinion is > that the message thus specified (at least) two votes, hence the > statement (which implies exactly one vote) is false.
Actually, you guys can punt on this one. It has either 0 (if the URL is not valid) or 2 (if the 2 votes behind the URL are valid) but not 1 in any case. -Goethe
