On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Quazie wrote:
> When I became a player is relevant, and what constitutes a valid
> registration is relevant.
So the judgements should be left alone, since that's what they
currently determine.
-root
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:23 AM, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is
>>> trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that
>>> message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted t
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is
>> trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that
>> message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to.
>
> I interpreted "after" as "due to", but I shoul
Quazie wrote:
> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is
> trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that
> message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to.
Interpreting "after" as a gloss for "as a result of" may be
acceptable shorthand for thes
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:33 -0400, Quazie wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > I judge CFJ 2471 FALSE. An announcement about the past that does not
>> > fall into any of the categories in rule 869 is just a true sta
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:33 -0400, Quazie wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I judge CFJ 2471 FALSE. An announcement about the past that does not
> > fall into any of the categories in rule 869 is just a true statement,
> > not a registration action.
>
> I intend to a
6 matches
Mail list logo
