if it is unclear as to my inactivity, it seems like there might be a win by paradox in my judging of this...
On 12/18/06, Manuel Lanctot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
============================ Appeal 1589a ============================ > Justice: Manu > Decision: REVERSE The original CFJ statement was "Quazie is inactive" which GreyKnight closed by saying "Then, by this ruling, Quazie will be inactive (so CFJ 1589 is FALSE)". It is pretty clear that by stating that Quazie will be inactive, the CFJ becomes TRUE. It is my understanding that Judge GreyKnight made a simple typo when typing the word "TRUE" (after all, the keys used to type "CLOSE" are not that far away) therefore my decision concerning CFJ 1589 is REVERSE to TRUE. ~Justice Manu
