On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The "question yes/no = equivalent statement true/false" is a legal fiction > that applies only after the CFJ is initiated. Until that CFJ is clearly > initiated, the answer to the question (yes/no) is clearly different than > the action effect of a directive statement "I hereby DO".
The equivalence established in CFJ 1894 was based only on the proposed R754-inconsequence of the difference in grammar. Since there is no fundamental difference between the grammar of a statement to be inquired into and that of any other true/false statement (including the sort of phrasing commonly used to perform actions), the same equivalence must hold for *all* such mappings of yes/no questions to true/false statements. Thus, a posting in the form of "Do I act?" must be interpreted in the same way as one in the form of "I act." for the purposes of the rules. Note that my purpose in raising this argument is not to have this case judged along the same lines as CFJ 1894, but to have the court consider the full implication of that judgement and hopefully overturn or at least limit it. Had I enough support in my earlier appeal attempt, then this case might have been as trivial as you make it out to be. > *sigh* you're going to make me answer this, aren't you? No, I would be quite content to have the appeal panel to do it instead. :-) -root
