On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Disputant omd's arguments are either purposefully or idiotically
> > obtuse. I have clearly and directly stated in my original
> > judgement why security is applicable in spite of the rules in
> > question
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Disputant omd's arguments are either purposefully or idiotically
> obtuse. I have clearly and directly stated in my original
> judgement why security is applicable in spite of the rules in
> question being >=2. It is clear in context that the
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:28 PM, omd wrote:
> I intend to call for reconsideration of this judgement with two
> support. Changing Activity is regulated per R2125 c) and e) and thus
> impossible to perform "except as allowed by the rules", while Rule
> 1688 states that securing an action makes it
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The first multiple-statement CFJ that I
> remember is CFJ 1266, which was dismissed due to a different but
> similar rule.
Obligatory digging: CFJ 6 most likely counts
(http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/stare_detail/06.txt).
4 matches
Mail list logo
