Ed Murphy on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:11:25 -0700 (MST)

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

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

Marr965 wrote:

>>   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?
> I don't think I said anything about CFI 112 in the actual body of the CFI. I merely stated that CFI 112 had some bearing with regards to my submitting the CFI.

Here's what you wrote:

> Pursuant to CFI 112, I submit a CFI:
> {{
>   Statement to be considered:
>   {{
>     The answer given by the first judge is now invalid.
>   }}

How could this statement reasonably be interpreted in any way
other than "The answer [i.e. judgement] given by the first judge
[of CFI 112] is now invalid."?
spoon-discuss mailing list