warrigal wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thursday 23 October 2008 04:10:14 pm Elliott Hird wrote: >>> * FLOYD, appropriate if the statement was logically capable >>> of being described as either true or false with equal accuracy >> Accuracy may be equally "not much" (.01==.01). Probably better to say >> something like: >> * FLOYD, appropriate if the statement logically could have been >> consistently described as either true or false > > If the rules are ambiguous and I call a CFJ to try to resolve the > ambiguity, I don't want "Yep, that's ambiguous, all right"; I want a > resolution.
If the rules are ambiguous wrt interpretation, then FLOYD is not appropriate. If the rules are ambiguous on purely logical grounds, then in what way is one choice superior to the other? (This is murky because "This statement is true" could also be IRRELEVANT.)
