Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2815a
================= Appeal 2815a (Interest Index = 0) ================== Panelist: Yally Decision: Panelist: G. Decision: Panelist: Wooble Decision: ======================================================================== History: Appeal initiated: 17 Jul 2010 05:22:32 GMT Assigned to Yally (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to G. (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to Wooble (panelist): (as of this message) ======================================================================== Appellant Murphy's Arguments: Gah, thinko, I meant FALSE. I intend (with 2 support) to appeal this. ======================================================================== Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2815 =================== CFJ 2815 (Interest Index = 0) ==================== In the above-quoted message, coppro purported a document to be part of an official report. ======================================================================== Caller: ais523 Judge: Murphy Judgement: TRUE Appeal: 2815a Decision: (pending) ======================================================================== History: Called by ais523: 16 Jul 2010 17:35:50 GMT Assigned to Murphy: 17 Jul 2010 00:06:53 GMT Judged TRUE by Murphy: 17 Jul 2010 00:08:05 GMT Appealed by Murphy: 17 Jul 2010 03:12:05 GMT Appealed by Yally: 17 Jul 2010 03:39:40 GMT Appealed by coppro: 17 Jul 2010 05:22:32 GMT Appeal 2815a: 17 Jul 2010 05:22:32 GMT ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by comex: CFJ 2292 ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: This is ISIDTID again. Saying that you purport something does not actually mean that you necessarily purport it. In the above message, coppro purported to purport a document to be part of an official report, but did not actually purport it to be part of an official report (in fact, e purported the document in question /not/ to be part of an official report). ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: > >> Despite the fact that it certainly isn't, I purport the following > >> document to be part of an official report: {Warrigal never held the > >> Patent Title Left in a Huff.} ======================================================================== Judge Murphy's Arguments: See CFJ 2813. ========================================================================
