On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Depends on whether comex means "we do not have perfect information > before it is judged" or "we do not have perfect information even after > it is allegedly judged (because the allegation could be wrong)". I > assume e meant the former, in which case your judgement agrees with em:
No, I mean after: > Annabel identified the set-building criterium for the Properties e intended > to transfer: all Properties e owned at the time. This is a well-defined set, > and given perfect information about Property ownership it is this Judge's > opinion that it would be sufficient to "specify" the Properties to be > transferred. Unfortunately, we do not have perfect information. Thus, it may > no longer possible to determine precisely what Properties are being > transferred. We may or not be in error in what we believe is the correct > gamestate, but we do not know (unless we ratify) whether there is any error. > Does the statement refer to all Properties e actually owned? all Properties > e was reported as owning? If the two cases are distinct, which is likely > given that Officers occasionally make mistakes, then Annabel did not satisfy > the first definition of "specify".
