Re: [s-d] RFJ 0008 judgement

[Jonathan David Amery <jdamery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > [[Incidentally, if I was able to judge the reasoning, and I agree with
> > Optional that im not, I would still Rule False: I think that though
> > RFJ6 had three clauses it still only had one statement.]]
> 
> I am SO pleased that you said that.  It was bugging me.  A "statement"
> can be several pages long.  (Although I think in the context of an RFJ
> you would be hard put to manage that!)

 Whilst it can be, the one I judged (7 IIRC) was clearly made up of a
number of parts some of which could be false whilst others were true.

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