On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: > I opine AFFIRM without prejudice. The original judgement suggests a > precedent that even a disclaimered statement violates Truthiness if you > don't reasonably believe it could be true. > > Also, I think the disclaimer was general enough to render the whole > list ineffective.
This is a contradictory pair of statements. I side with the latter statement, therefore I opine OVERTURN/NOT GUILTY without prejudice. -G.
