On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 19:31 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> Therefore: I judge CFJ 2086 FALSE, CFJ 2087 FALSE.
I call for judgement on the statement {{An odd number of CFJs with ID
numbers in the set {2146, 2080, 2079, 2065, 2064, 2049, 2009, 1976,
1975, 1753, 1690, 1676, 1610, 1604, 1428, 1427, 1395, 1394, 1393, 1346}
have inappropriate judgements}}.Arguments: All the CFJs listed refer to themself in one way or another; based on the judgement of CFJs 2086-2087, they should all have been judged either FALSE, UNDETERMINED, or DISMISS, depending on the time they were called and the exact wording of the CFJ in question. (The "odd number" trick forces all the CFJs in question to be considered; I'm taking this route because some of the CFJs in question are far too old to appeal.) Also, I'm willing to retract this CFJ if it looks like it'll create too much work, as long as someone explains to me the gist of what exactly is going on here. -- ais523
