On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > Sir Toby wrote: > >> Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >>>> Identification is not a toggle switch with values "unambiguously >>>> identified" and "completely unidentified". The message identifies its >>>> sender as a player, which is ambiguous but still communicates much >>>> more than if it contained no statement of identification at all. >>> Just like writing a message in Turkish and identifying the language >>> as Turkish clearly communicates that there is a message but for the >>> purposes of the rules doesn't communicate the content. You know the >>> CFJ of which I speak. >> >> I do not know of this CFJ. Can someone illuminate me please? > > I can't find it, but I believe it involved someone using the Turkish > word for a vote value (without identifying the language, even).
CFJ 1460. Apologies I was overly glib in replying to root where I think e and I have discussed this before. Anyway it's a nice precedent on messages needing to have a reasonable chance of being understood by intended recipients to be considered communication. -Goethe
