On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 19:46 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote:
Precedent in CFJ 1334 (referenced by root's arguments) has held that a
statement of intent is ambiguous when it is missing an essential
parameter for the action in question that will need to be assigned
when the action is completed.
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2065
== CFJ 2065 ==
Sgeo has won today or yesterday (relative to the initiation of
this CFJ).
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2065
== CFJ 2065 ==
Sgeo has won
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The first issue is whether the statement of intent unambiguously
descri[s] both the action and the method. The method (Agoran Consent)
is correctly described. Whether the action is correctly described
depends on whether
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2065
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail:
