On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: >> Or rather I should ask, how is the meaning ambiguous in a way that did >> not apply equally in the case considered in CFJ 1894? > > Proposal 5425 was passed between CFJs 1894 and 1903. > > This was in fact the original point of this case, and I'm somewhat > surprised that the rather long discussion here doesn't seem to be > considering it. > > Just to reiterate: Rule 591 *explicitly* makes questions and > statements equivalent for the specific case of inquiry CFJs.
This actually weakens, not strengthens CFJ 1894, as it implies that a question is not the same as a statement until it is taken to be a CFJ. -Goethe
