On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > I intend (with 2 support) to appeal this judgement on culpability. At > least explain /why/ you're going against my intent that SHOULD/should > would be recursively non-binding.
What intent?
You know, it's funny. There's no arguments on this CFJ other than a
free admission of guilt.
--
Taral <tar...@gmail.com>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
