omd wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:18 AM, ais523 > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 00:03 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> ================= Appeal 1631a (Interest Index = 0) ================== >> >> The caller has provided no argument why the verdict in question is >> necessarily incorrect, so AFFIRM seems appropriate here. Thinking about >> it, I'm going to violate a SHOULD and opine AFFIRM WITH PREJUDICE, and >> hope that other judges do likewise; after all, if an inquiry CFJ can be >> a punishment, why can't an appeals case be? Then we can argue about >> whether R101 implies a right to appeal appeals even when the rest of the >> rules don't. > > Hmm? Wouldn't that just ding OscarMeyr?
The point wasn't to ding /you/, the point was to set up another test case for what R101 allows. If your registration anniversary not being what you'd like is a punishment, then OscarMeyr's judgement being targeted by a prejudiced appeal result may be one too.
