On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: >> 2008/9/20 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Quite possibly that would violate R101. >>> -- >>> ais523 >>> >> If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing > > That's why the wording of R101 clause is as it is; if you're told "you > can re-initiate on the same subject next week" then you still have > a reasonable expectation of resolution with minor delay (but still in > reasonable time). I think there's a precedent on that somewhere?
Didn't I call a CFJ on that subject once? > On the other hand, if there's a type of CFJ subject that can be refused > indefinitely, that would violate R101. > > -Goethe > > > >
