|
M P Darke on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:14:02 -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: M P Darke <darkemalcolm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:13:57 +0000 (GMT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s1024; t=1276712037; bh=/xrDrSpLArWg273MhrNEAtiDTVGhLBBAW6x7TDTaMfc=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=UU6b8ZctdtxVIxV42A41nwzTgFmIOccY283+MBke7gzMHM4g0uRKXY+nUlwl7eLjalUiH40GlUzMbPU7m+i6wzIUeOdlzo88f92QxaXY2qhyyRaYqwWGMl476Qyl91W9gg7YWPZQCXZSBDm4nPaJ5djm/aqd5GBHWDP972eBwGI=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=shMj5ajaS/Ejo3231nf6BJmTeJTzMWdMxnlweNDxDTbCwZPzXwLLf3d3W+Cax2cQ+LYLM7cNPqNkjPK40208z32w9/AZpeKOHjtlWpGZW9+PYZUnwcVPW+smnnHc+3QNylhveQlQfX7tZcUMWF//NMJCvflvQDpNiuaVC6hTGo0=;
- In-reply-to: <4C18DB6F.4020804@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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."?
Very easily. You clearly didn't read the entirety of the CFI. I stated in the "Background" section that this was a general case, rather than pertaining explicitly to CFI 112.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss