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

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss