On 19 April 2011 19:00, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Elliott Hird > <penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> I find the precedent of CFJs two-nine-nine-one and two-two-nine-two >> (my number keys are broken) disturbing, and intend, with two support, >> to Motion to Reconsider them. >> > > Given that both were already being motioned to reconsider, does this > add a support to those previous motions or not?
Ah. I support those, then.
