root wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 9:37 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM. "Objection" clearly
appears in the web page (not just its URL), so the "multiple votes
-> FALSE that it was exactly one vote" interpretation is correct.
I'm confused. You appear to be accepting the appellant's argument
that a URL on its own is not a vote, but asserting that the
"objection" on the web page does constitute a vote. This would lead
to reversing to TRUE, not to affirming.
The web page contains both "objection" and "support". My opinion is
that the message thus specified (at least) two votes, hence the
statement (which implies exactly one vote) is false.
