On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CFJ 1894's equivalence in my mind only applies for the purposes of > determining the subject and validity of a call for judgement. I think > the text must be evaluated independently of its use or non-use in > calls for judgement in determining whether it constitutes an action by > announcement. Of course, this does not mean that implicit quoting, > etc. of the statement that often occurs in making calls for judgement > (as in "I call for judgement on the following: <Possible action by > announcement>") need be ignored in making this determination, but this > is a matter more of ordinary language interpretation than of the exact > requirements on subjects of calls for judgement.
That is both sensible and complete. Thank you. (Could you make it your concurring opinion, please?)
