Daniel Lepage on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:27:14 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] RFJ 0008 judgement

On Dec 12, 2006, at 8:17 AM, Jonathan David Amery wrote:

>>> [[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.

That makes it a bad RFJ, because judging the statement false doesn't  
settle anything, but I don't think it makes it an illegal RFJ.

Maybe we should have a list of "proper RFJ procedure" somewhere,  
detailing the sort of thing that one should not do, but that might be  
appropriate sometimes.


spoon-discuss mailing list