Quote:
Originally Posted by njbchbum
thanx. avogado! read it! now gotta ask a] is this related to the earllier decision that amenities were sold at less than their real value; and 2] this is a non-binding determination, is it not?
|
If this is in fact a non-binding descision, then why is everyone so upset? Did they not read the entire article or is there something about a non-binding descision that IS binding?
As far as I can tell this is mearly only a step in the direction to what everyone is so upset about in the many (not all) posts in this thread.
Am I missing something?
__________________
It's everyone's responsibility to foster "Personal Responsibility".
