On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > comex hasn't agreed to anything in panel 1903a, so it can't be judged and a > > concurring opinion hasn't been published. I judge FALSE on both 1908 & > 1909. > > I intend to appeal CFJ 1908.
Uh, did you mean to appeal or also appeal CFJ 1909? If you really want to argue CFJ 1908, then can you please explain exactly what concurring opinion you think the panel published? If it's comex's, then, well, it seems that that wasn't ever sent to the public forum (the part of it quoting verbatim Goethe's arguments was, but not AFAICT the part of it that was comex's actual commentary). > The reasoning with which I caused the panel to judge AFFIRM in 1903a > was provided by comex and labeled by em "Concurring opinion:". It was > posted in reply to woggle's consent to any have the panel judge remand > as long as comex or I provided a concurring opinion. The context, > including woggle's quoted message, clearly shows that e intended eir > message to satisfy woggle's request for a concurring opinion. -woggle
