On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The CFJ on whether the win worked at all I thought had little merit at >> first, but Zefram's argument (on the specificity of "all players who >> support me" in dependent action intents) is at least worth considering >> so I'm awaiting the outcome. -The Herald > > Speaking of which, a gratuitous argument in CFJ 2065: The judge may > find CFJ 1334 to be an informative precedent.
Oh that's the one. Though reading it, I notice that the action choice in CFJ 1334 was up to modification by the performer after the intent announcement (thus still ambiguous) while in this case the performer's action was "locked in" by the intent to include "all". -Goethe
