M P Darke on Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:44:18 -0700 (MST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] The Nature of CFIs


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.

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



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