On Jan 14, 2008 4:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > > Arguments: As H. Goethe pointed out, there was no serious doubt over > > the appropriateness of the judgment in CFJ 1860. Instead the decision > > to REASSIGN was made based upon the appeal panel's distaste for the > > bribery involved in my original judgment. R911 says: > > Ugh. Gratuitous arguments: > > They were reasonable to request further evaluation (through REMAND > or REASSIGN), even if not all of their arguments were perfect. While > their arguments and side-motives created sufficient "reasonable doubt" > as to BobTHJ's guilt (as needed to find em guilty in a criminal trial), > it was appropriate for them to remand or reassign. If I had anticipated > the above response, I would have been more careful at pointing out this > burden of proof issue. > > -Goethe >
So can I add "The Unpredictable" to my list of un-titles? BobTHJ (The Unreasonable)
