On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, John Smith wrote:
> Additional arguments: You (and the people arguing in the discussion forum) 
> seem to be failing to take into account the context in which the CfJ was 
> called (i.e. immediately below a clearly labeled document, whose label 
> matched the referent you collectively are claiming did not make sense)

No, we're taking into account that the context didn't matter.



Reply via email to