On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > As an additional example, the CotC publishes the text of CFJs, even if > they are later judged FALSE. E certainly isn't claiming that the text of > every CFJ ever published is true. However, they are still public > documents, nevertheless. (They aren't self-ratifying because they aren't > claims of identity.)
The CotC is in fact publishing truth: e is publishing the fact that "Judge X judged this statement TRUE" or "Caller Y called for judgement and gave these arguments." And e better not be lying about that, or Judge X or Caller Y would have something to say. What you're missing is that we're allowed to use context. For example, in CFJ 1361, context made an otherwise false statement "I transfer X to Beverly" into a true statement "in this message, Beverly is a nickname for root." The point is, that context functions for all legal purposes, you can't say "ignore the context of the disclaimer for the purposes of resolving my action, but pay attention to it for the purposes of determining the truth." Well you can say that, you did. But in the case where telling the truth about denial *was* the action, the disclaimer served to invalidate it. > Just out of interest, how many people missed the disclaimer before comex > noticed it? I noticed it and thought "what bollocks. Good luck with that." -Goethe
