On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Feb 5, 2008 4:38 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> woggle's new argument is reasonably complete and logically coherent. >> However, I believe it displays poor judgement regarding the use of the >> English language, inasmuch as it does not accept the modifying clause in >> question as modifying the verb in the manner that was obviously intended. >> For this reason, I intend with 2 support to appeal this judgement. >> I believe that this problem cannot be rectified by remanding again, >> and so I recommend that the appeal judge reassign the case. > > It wasn't "obviously" intended as a request to be listed as a watcher. > When I first saw it, I thought that it was just a snarky way of > attempting registration.
I agree with root here (that's how I took it). So much for obvious. -Goethe
