On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > Of course that question doesn't initiate a CFJ. But the question this > case is concerned with was "Do I hereby initiate an inquiry CFJ on > this sentence?" The CFJ 1894 translation of that would be "I hereby > initiate an inquiry CFJ on this sentence." Do you deny that this > latter statement would have the effect of initiating a CFJ?
Actually root (sorry to keep coming back to this, it's bugging me), this is in fact where it falls down for me. I would say that: "I hereby initiate an inquiry CFJ on this sentence." is different from: I CFJ on the following: "I hereby initiate an inquiry CFJ on this sentence." The first is a sort of ISID fallacy that confounds/confuses the announcement and is therefore ambiguous, while the second is an "announcement which includes the statement" (R591p1). Is there a case where a CFJ was called like this to refer to as precedent? -Goethe