On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 06:24 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > > I intend to appeal CFJ 2426 with 2 support, because its reasoning is > > based on that of CFJs 2424 and 2425, and they should therefore be > > appealed as a set or not at all. > > ITYM 2423. > Oh, I misread your message, and thought you were appealing 2423 and 2424. Then I mentally shifted one number... You're appealing the same one I was trying to appeal, then.
-- ais523
