|
M P Darke on Sat, 19 Jun 2010 04:36:50 -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: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:36:46 +0000 (GMT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s1024; t=1276947406; bh=O1GvZpqTLgQycjVV/DLz7odazWkHjyIIcgrTNlx/0Cg=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=3rRRAP3SKAkn0QgnSgVZNyHNdBxIxDGjapyH7Ox8C7HEf+kSYNhoEyKeBGQq/OlkJZieoAfrpvZbwW1qxjEZ39CCWR1X47tW9lkkMK8NCX26Vd1RPNl+BkIx5xpTGvMA5Zvfqjty/1r+k06f5DVW9BFXuIU2tSSz4IE+VVJm0Lo=
- 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=p0VlPzJqrXbZmPX0Ss4puADqCe0ox8OQGYyqGxYtDIKatFz2lbTp/zCzcSO8WQd1XHAVJeoBmMdcB3zs5+2PYFPp7nydCHup2khmwaBWwPVE0e/01YJnbJ+oWTaX5Otx1ODu+MOiX1cffSULnDwZtok+QYinzi39AHq5SMnSjAY=;
- In-reply-to: <4C199396.7080301@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *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.
Sorry, my bad.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss