omd wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:55 AM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> Oh, this judgement definitely failed, by the way-- it's almost exactly >>> parallel to CFJ 1631. >> >> Not really; CFJ 1361 had a blank body so there was not obviously an >> action taking place, my message clearly was indicating a context. > > Any message sent to the business forum pretty strongly indicates an > action (evidence: the pseudo-tradition of objecting to empty > messages), but I wouldn't say a message with a quote does so more than > an entirely blank one, especially when the entirely blank one is sent > by a non-player so that, like your message, there is only one sort of > action you would expect it to include.
You could also expect it to include a CFJ, especially if you're me.
