Ed Murphy on Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:07:10 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Nature of CFIs

Marr965 wrote:

> I did say what I meant. I was not trying to protest Murphy's being
> assigned CFI 112, I was merely trying to provide a precedent for
> any other cases.

I don't understand what you meant, then.  Why did you issue a CFI
referring to "the judgement of CFI 112" when (at the time) no such
judgement had been published?
spoon-discuss mailing list