On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote: > Actually, based on the recent outage, I was looking at the precedent > (CFJ 2058) again, and as far as I can tell the judge's verdict > contradicts eir arguments. Therefore, another precedent on the matter > would likely be very welcome.
Revisits aren't a bad thing, I was thinking the same thing; but the last paragraph of cmealerjr's arguments make it clear that the apparent contradiction is due to a technicality in the imperfectly-phrased cfj statement. -G.
