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

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marr965 wrote:

> --- On Fri, 11/6/10, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> From: Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [s-b] The Nature of CFIs
> To: "B Nomic Business" <spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Friday, 11 June, 2010, 16:44
> 
> JamesB wrote:
> 
>>> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:11:03 +0000
>>> From: darkemalcolm@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [s-b] The Nature of CFIs
>>>
>>> Pursuant to CFI 112, I submit a CFI:
>>> {{
>>>    Statement to be considered:
>>>    {{
>>>      The answer given by the first judge is now invalid.
>>>    }}
>>>    Background:
>>>    {{
>>>      The Oracle assigned a Judge a CFI and that Judge answered
>>> it, but it was subsequently found that a script had assigned the CFI to
>>> a different Judge.
>>>    }}
>>> }}
>>> [[This layout is for ease of understanding. All of the text needs to be taken into account, but the CFI is on the statement "The answer given by the first Judge is now invalid.", rather than on the other sentence.]]
>>>
>>
>>
>> This is CFI 113. I assign CFI 113 to Judge Murphy.                           
> 
> If this assignment is valid, then I judge Refused.  Specifically,
> CFI 112 ("Rule 10 is a Rule.") was allegedly assigned to either
> me or Wooble, but neither of us had given an answer at the time
> CFI 113 was issued.

> I object to this judgement. The CFI was not to ascertain whether CFI
> 112 was valid, but rather to establish future conduct for handling
> CFIs.

Then say what you mean, e.g.
  "CFI: The alleged assignment of CFI 112 to Murphy was invalid"
and/or
  "CFI: The alleged assignment of CFI 112 to Murphy is now invalid"
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss