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

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marr965 wrote:

>>    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.

*looks again*  Oh, okay, so IIUC you meant it to be interpreted
as "[In the hypothetical situation described in the accompanying
background section,] the answer given by the first judge [would be]
now invalid".  Which makes sense /now/, but at the time, you seemed
to be claiming that that situation actually applied to CFI 112.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss