On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The paradox was the question of "who judged CFJ 1594". This was before > judgement-questions were specifically excluded from paradox. -Goethe
I realize that. The fact that you consulted two potential oracles and both said "I'm not the oracle; ask the other guy" doesn't make the question "who is the oracle" paradoxical. It just means that the oracle was lying to you, and that those answers alone aren't going to be sufficient to resolve the question. > Why would the reasons have been incorrect? They were both opinions > within the realm of reason. Ultimately, one of the reasons was determined to be legally correct, and the other legally incorrect. > I still don't believe it was appealable, due to the fact that it > was uncertain who judged it and thus what was being appealed (Appeals > used to be applied to a particular judge's judgement). -G. Good point. It might have been possible to appeal both judgements and assign them to the same panel. The panel would have needed to overturn (a sustention would have just kept things ambiguous), and the arguments would presumably have made it clear which one was being overturned, i.e. which one the appeal court considered to be the real judge. -root
