On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:01 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I support Murphy's call for appeal of CFJ 1903. In spite of reading this > > > in the caller's arguments, I looked at the ruleset that contained > R591/23, > > > not the recently passed R591/24 (which contains the above clause), and > this > > > clause calls into question my otherwise impeccable reasoning. > > > I cause the panel to judge AFFIRM with the above-quoted reasoning.
I believe this is invalid. IIRC, the other panelists agreed to AFFIRM with a concurring opinion, which has not been provided here. And FWIW, I think that assigning an unappealable judgement while making no attempt whatsoever to actually address the serious question at hand is simply deplorable. -root
