Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Nature of CFIs

Ed Murphy on Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:07:10 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Nature of CFIs

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Nature of CFIs
From: Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:06:42 -0700
Authentication-results: hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com smtp.user=emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx; auth=pass (PLAIN)
In-reply-to: <567087.94760.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <567087.94760.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0

Marr965 wrote:

> I did say what I meant. I was not trying to protest Murphy's being
> assigned CFI 112, I was merely trying to provide a precedent for
> any other cases.

I don't understand what you meant, then.  Why did you issue a CFI
referring to "the judgement of CFI 112" when (at the time) no such
judgement had been published?
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Nature of CFIs
  - From: M P Darke

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Nature of CFIs
  - From: M P Darke

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI - The nature of shadows.
Next by Date: [s-d] Oops?
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Nature of CFIs
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Nature of CFIs
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread