This is getting embarassing.
"aircanada.com" is on the list. It was counted, and classified as speculation.
Result: F (original registrant retains name, without litigation) Toeppen still
had the resgitration at the time of the study. This may still be the case.
--MM

Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:

> or aircanada.com?
>
> At 05:56 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> >
> >> One of the reasons that Mueller's study is not worth the storage space it
> >> takes up is that he presumed to categorize cases based on an incomplete
> >> knowledge of the facts (and law) involved.  I mean, how many final court
> >> decisions did he use in his study (not that final court decisions give the
> >> definitive facts but they do give the definitive law).
> >
> >We're all still waiting for you to contest a single one of those
> >classifications.Is Pokey.org a string conflict as I defined it, or not? How
> >about zippo.com?
> >How many final court decisions did we use? All of them that were available.
> >
> >By the way, all knowledge of "facts" is incomplete.
> >--MM
> >
> >
> >


Reply via email to