Quazie wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2080 >>>> >>>> ============================== CFJ 2080 ============================== >>>> >>>> I CFJ on this statement. >>>> >>>> ======================================================================== >>>> >>>> Caller: Quazie >>>> >>>> Judge: Murphy >>>> Judgement: >>>> >>>> ======================================================================== >>>> >>>> History: >>>> >>>> Called by Quazie: 15 Jul 2008 20:13:33 GMT >>>> Assigned to Murphy: (as of this message) >>>> >>>> ======================================================================== >>>> >>>> Caller's Evidence: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> I CFJ on this statement. >>>>> >>>>> -root >>>>> >>>> I CFJ on that statement. >>>> >>>> ======================================================================== >>>> >>> This CFJ is incorrect. I CFJed on that statement, not this statement. >> The antecedent of "that statement" was clearly the statement "I CFJ on >> this statement." >> >> -root >> > > Then why does tusho's CFJ of 'I CFJ on the previous statement' remain?
Because e had a pair of statements referring to each other.
