Re: [s-b] RFJ 0008 judgement

[comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday 12 December 2006 8:51, Daniel Lepage wrote:
> Could be even worse: on at least one occasion, a CFI was judged TRUE
> because the player who stood to benefit from the CFI's truth offered
> bribes to two of three Judges. But this is why RFJs "guide further
> interpretation" instead of being absolute law - there's no reason why
> the RFJ can't be reversed later. Even without judicial corruption or
> negligence, it's perfectly possible that a judge might simply miss an
> important rule and so misjudge an RFJ. In that case, we're free to
> simply ignore the judgment.

[[I wonder what will happen, then...]]

I submit a RFJ:
{{
The Statement contained in this RFJ is determined by its Judge.
}}

Attachment: pgpHYzFpEKDEN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business