On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
This is where we disagree, then. R591 says the announcement must include the statement, but it doesn't say how it must be included or that the inclusion must be proper (in the set-theoretic sense). So my opinion is that the first does include the statement and meet the standards of R591. Of the following spectrum of announcements, which would you consider to satisfactorily include the statement? I think that the last is dubious (since the construction of the negation is ambiguous), but I would accept any of the others. "I initiate an inquiry case on the statement: Y is Z." "I initiate X number of inquiry cases on the statement: Y is Z." "I initiate an inquiry case on the same statement on which I attempted but failed to initiate an inquiry case in message X." "If the previous paragraph of this message failed to initiate an inquiry case, I initiate an inquiry case on the same statement." "I initiate an inquiry case on the state motto of Missouri." "I initiate an inquiry case on this sentence." "I initiate an inquiry case on the following sentence. I initiate an inquiry case on the previous sentence." "I initiate an inquiry case on the negation of this sentence." -root
