On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2073 >> >> ============================== CFJ 2073 ============================== >> >> Either the sky is always red or, if I do not hereby initiate an >> inquiry case on this sentence, then the sky is always green. >> >> ======================================================================== > > I CFJ on the statement "There is an inquiry case with the ID number 2073." > > Arguments: Per R478, a player performs an action by announcement "by > announcing that e performs it." What Ivan Hope announced was not a > statement that e performed the action, but a statement that logically > implied a statement that e performed the action. I contend there is a > difference. > > -root >
So if CFJs 2073, 2019, 2080, and 2079 weren't actually CFJs, does that make the rotations of the bench that happened after judges were assigned to these cases invalid? Meaning, if they don't exist, then they weren't judged. If they weren't judged, then they couldn't have become sitting by judging. Thus the CotC rotated the bench with a standing member. Either that or E made a judge sitting at an incorrect time.
