Re: spoon-business: RFJ 15 (formerly Judgment on RFJ13)

[Wbfu Xbegorva <kortbein@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Josh Kortbein has been assigned to judge RFJ 15:
>
>The ruling for Judgment 13 should be "false".

Ruling:

FALSE

The ruling for Judgment 13 "should be" "true" because it was originally
ruled "true". With that ruling, the RFJ was answered, and no further
ruling on the matter was possible, without further RFJs which speak
directly to the matter addressed by RFJ 13.

If the Plaintiff wishes to change history, e should make a more
careful RFJ. What e has attempted is akin to trying to correct
an incorrect answer on a test which has already been handed in,
by telling the professor that the answer "should be" the correct one.

Furthermore, even if I am to read the Plaintiff's RFJ as a statement
of fact - "the judgment for RFJ 13 was in error" - that statement alone
is not enough to cause me to issue a Judicial Order to right the
perceived error, because I have not been asked to judge in the matter
of Benjamin's place on the Roster.



Josh

-- 
josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/