On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I judge UNDECIDABLE. We will never know unless we open the box.
I initiate a criminal case against BobTHJ for violating Rule 2158 by
judging CFJ 2005 UNDECIDABLE. It seems that this judgement was only
made for the purposes
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You didn't describe the method, though, so that probably didn't count
> as intent. I intend to appeal CFJ 2005 with 2 support.
With the support of woggle, Quazie (possibly) and Ivan Hope CXXVII, I
appeal CFJ 2005.
-root
On 6/16/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You didn't describe the method, though, so that probably didn't count
> as intent. I intend to appeal CFJ 2005 with 2 support.
I support.
--Ivan Hope Auld Lang Syne
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> (I smell an appeal coming)
>>
>> I support.
>>
>> You didn't describe th
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (I smell an appeal coming)
>
> I support.
>
> You didn't describe the method, though, so that probably didn't count
> as intent. I intend to appeal C
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (I smell an appeal coming)
I support.
You didn't describe the method, though, so that probably didn't count
as intent. I intend to appeal CFJ 2005 with 2 support.
-root
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2005
>
> == CFJ 2005 ==
>
>Schrodinger's Cat is a player.
>
>
