169:14 judgment

From: Christopher Bartlett (bridgeweaver_at_mediaone.net)
Date: Tue Oct 02 2001 - 09:09:47 PDT

• Next message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 169:14 - INVALID +2"
• Previous message: Glenn Overby II: "169:14 - INVALID +2"
• Next in thread: Glenn Overby II: "Re: 169:14 judgment"
• Maybe reply: Glenn Overby II: "Re: 169:14 judgment"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

I appreciate the reason why you have stated my rule to be invalid, however
I refer you to your judgments of 169:4 and 169:10, which by my reading do
not mention space-dependent effects any more explicitly than did I.  I feel
that precedent in allowing this to slide warrants a reversal of your
judgment.

     Chris Bartlett

--
Rule Date: 2001-10-02 16:10:52 GMT

• Next message: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 169:14 - INVALID +2"
• Previous message: Glenn Overby II: "169:14 - INVALID +2"
• Next in thread: Glenn Overby II: "Re: 169:14 judgment"
• Maybe reply: Glenn Overby II: "Re: 169:14 judgment"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST