spoon-business: CFJ 688 verdict

["Gavin Doig" <gmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This member of the Upper House hereby rules FALSE on CFJ 688.

Analysis:
On the analysis of the original judge, I point out that the lack of a defined price for something does not make it possible to buy that thing for nothing.

On the analysis of the original CFJ, the argument given was that the fact that the rules permitted one to drink a glass of champagne, without explicitly requiring that one have such a glass of champagne, allows one to drink a glass of champagne without having one. Alternatively, this can be viewed as a distinction between performing the action "drink" on "a glass of champagne", and merely performing the action "drink a glass of champagne". However, this is flawed, as the rules clearly define a glass of champagne as an object, so the clearest interpretation is the "drink" "a glass of champagne" one, which requires a glass to drink.

The Reality Police.
-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup