Goethe wrote:
*Sigh* Subject lines may give some guidance, but they are not
a substantive part of the message. (I'd say RTF case archive but
I can't find the case in question myself, we need a more effective
case archive or a way to search case texts hint hint). The message
taken in its own c
On 11/5/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [Mainly just added precedents cited by Zefram].
>
> JUDGEMENT in CFJ 1774
>
Fookiemyartug intends (with 2 Support) to Appeal the Judgment of CFJ
1774, if it fact it has already occurred.
BobTHJ
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Zefram wrote:
> I find the FLR is pretty effective for this, due to its collation
> of relevant precedents.
Ah, yes, I keep forgetting the fine effort you've put into the FLR
annotations in the past few months. Just another reason to keep you
on (both) jobs. Okay comex, R
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>*Sigh* Subject lines may give some guidance, but they are not
>a substantive part of the message. (I'd say RTF case archive but
>I can't find the case in question myself,
CFJ 1631.
> we need a more effective
>case archive or a way to
On 11/5/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *Sigh* Subject lines may give some guidance, but they are not
> a substantive part of the message. (I'd say RTF case archive but
> I can't find the case in question myself, we need a more effective
> case archive or a way to search case texts h
On 11/5/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/5/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BUS: I say I pseudo-judge (fwd)
>
> CFJ: The message with subject "BUS: I say I pseudo-judge (fwd)",
> message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> that purported to judge CFJs 1774 and 1775) had the effect o
comex:
> - This message was sent to a Public Forum.
> - Labels in this message contained JUDGEMENT instead of PSUEDO-JUDGEMENT.
Um, sounds like two rather substantive differences to me.
> Nevertheless, the title would, to someone who had not been paying
> attention to the Discussion Forum, appea
7 matches
Mail list logo
