On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 18:53 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote: >> 2009/5/20 Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com>: >>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2494 >>> >>> I judge TRUE by my own arguments. >>> >> >> I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment because remanding >> here was an awful tiebreakre. > > The AFFIRM was actually quite interesting there, given that it was a > TRUE/FALSE reversal between the arguments and the judgement... REMAND or > OVERRULE are the usual judgements there. (Unless I'm thinking of the > wrong CfJ...)
You mean "affirm based on the arguments of Murphy and Goethe" where both appellants argued for a non-affirm? Did that mean that Pavitra wasn't paying attention, or that e accepted the arguments of Murphy (that the judgement was wrong) but realized from the arguments of Goethe that the actual judgement agreed with Murphy? -Goethe
