On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: > and 3) alone is enough to rule 1813 FALSE, which is why I didn't > join Wooble's appeal. I'm instead disputing 2), on the grounds > that treating VVLOP as an implicit set is too big a stretch.
Ah yes, even if an appeals court "overturned" (2), they'd still have to sustain FALSE. Fair enough. Still, the whole argument in this CFJ is part of precedent, as I understand it, so a conflicting answer would still require some appeal to bring it into harmony (or refute) this one. -G.
