On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes it does. Before one of the cases is appealed, an outside case >> that says "A is the judge of case X" can't be judged true (for it >> implies e isn't) and can't be judged false (for it implies e is). > > No, it doesn't. If the outside case is judged true, it implies that A > is the judge of X, and therefore A judged X incorrectly while B judged > it correctly (but invalidly). A might later be vindicated by further > debate of the subject, but there's no reason at that point in time to > assume that the judge of the outside case is wrong no matter what eir > judgement actually is.
Except that's not what happened. Precedent was set otherwise and Murphy was awarded the paradox win. Important note: this was pre-large judicial reform so we treated judicial results differently then. -G.
