On Sunday 02 March 2008 12:11 Geoffrey Spear 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. > > --Wooble
It is not mind, it is not Buddha, it is not things. (I just wanted to check -- did you *mean* to AFFIRM with arguments that logically oppose that judgement?)
