Wooble wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> By the way, in just reading about error ratings on concurring opinions,
>> I can't tell if 1 is supposed to be good and 99 bad or vice versa?
>
> Considering it doesn't do anything at all, it probably doesn't matter.
> It's b
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 13:21 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> By the way, in just reading about error ratings on concurring opinions,
>>> I can't tell if 1 is supposed to be good and 99 bad or vice vers
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> This is a strange situation; I agree with the reasoning, I think the
> judgement is plausible, and yet I still want the CFJ remanded for more
> details! The problem here is simply that the major point of the scam
> just hasn't been addressed.
I would sugg
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 13:21 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > By the way, in just reading about error ratings on concurring opinions,
> > I can't tell if 1 is supposed to be good and 99 bad or vice versa?
>
> Considering it doesn't do anything
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 13:13 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:12 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> >> I judge CFJ 2330 FALSE.
> > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement. I agree with Judge
> > Wooble's arguments
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> By the way, in just reading about error ratings on concurring opinions,
> I can't tell if 1 is supposed to be good and 99 bad or vice versa?
Considering it doesn't do anything at all, it probably doesn't matter.
It's been in the rule for over
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:12 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> Now, does R1728 base the time of a future event upon the time of
>> another event? Arguably, yes. When you announce your intent to
>> perform a dependent action (the "other event"), we may say th
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:12 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> Now, does R1728 base the time of a future event upon the time of
>> another event? Arguably, yes. When you announce your intent to
>> perform a dependent action (the "other event"),
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'm certainly not appealing, because if this isn't exactly my own opinion,
> it's pretty darn close. But my question is: does this mean that the
> "4 days" (time before you can start performing the action) isn't a time
> limit of any kind? A
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Now, does R1728 base the time of a future event upon the time of
> another event? Arguably, yes. When you announce your intent to
> perform a dependent action (the "other event"), we may say that the
> time limit to perform that action (the "future ev
10 matches
Mail list logo
