On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 08:38 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > ============================== CFJ 2260 ==============================
> >
> > If the purported backing document for Annoyances as specified in
> > the message purporting to define them existed, at least one
> > Annoyance would exist
> >
> > ========================================================================
>
> I judge IRRELEVANT as permitted by Proposal 6044's addition to R591.
>
Not appealing, but I fear that such judgements will simply persuade
people to bring the circumstances in question about and then CFJ again,
which will be a massive waste of time for everyone involved, more or
less.
--
ais523
