On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 20 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 18:53 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote: > >> 2009/5/20 Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com>: > >>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > >>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2494 > >>> > >>> I judge TRUE by my own arguments. > >>> > >> > >> I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment because remanding > >> here was an awful tiebreakre. > > > > The AFFIRM was actually quite interesting there, given that it was a > > TRUE/FALSE reversal between the arguments and the judgement... REMAND or > > OVERRULE are the usual judgements there. (Unless I'm thinking of the > > wrong CfJ...) > > You mean "affirm based on the arguments of Murphy and Goethe" where > both appellants argued for a non-affirm? Did that mean that Pavitra > wasn't paying attention, or that e accepted the arguments of Murphy > (that the judgement was wrong) but realized from the arguments of > Goethe that the actual judgement agreed with Murphy?
It's an unusual situation, at least. Maybe "AFFIRM with error rating 90" or something like that would have made it clear, but that's not what Pavitra said, and as a result I'm not sure what e meant at all... -- ais523
