On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:35 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Why? The judgement doesn't contradict CFJ 1307. If you want to >> reverse the CFJ 1307 precedent, call a new case. > > The arguments explicitly do. Judge Wooble uses "I award a Bean to the > player who first assigned a judgment to CFJ 2238" as an example of a > situation where the player would be specified, but CFJ 1307 strongly > implies that the player would not be adequately specified in that case > because we do not have perfect information.
The information is readily available. Such a specification would unambiguously identify me.
