On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 09/19/2010 08:57 PM, Taral wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:40 PM, omd<c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I intend to appeal this with two support. I believe that this > > > judgement is correct, but should clarify that failing to check did not > > > actually absolve coppro of any liability were eir original belief in > > > Wooble's IADoP-ness not quite so certain. > > > > That's really not the point of appeals. If you want clarification, > > just ask the judge for it. > > > > Yes it is.
But it shouldn't be.
