On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Alex Smith <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > --- On Wed, 23/3/11, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> > ============================== CFJ 2980 ============================== >> > >> > ais523 is a player. >> > >> > ======================================================================== >> >> TRUE. > > I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support, on the basis that it > doesn't have any arguments at all. In particular, was the referent of "I do > so." too ambiguous to cause a registration? (Note that the message was in a > thread about a /de/registration; also, if the CFJ calling was part of a > quote, rather than in the message body itself, precedent would be that I > would call a duplicate CFJ, rather than perform an action stated in the CFJ > statement (which is clearly meant to be a statement of fact, rather than an > action, precisely because it's a CFJ statement); the only actual actions > there are the call of the CFJ, and a quote of a deregistration. "ais523 > wrote: > I deregister. // I do so." would clearly be a deregistration. So why > is the message in question so obviously a registration, that it can be judged > TRUE even without arguments?
I transfer a prop from myself to ais523 because this intent reminds me of several of my own... was CFJ 2642 really a year and a half ago? 1786 three and a half years ago? What of CFJ 2344? But I don't support, because you should have submitted that argument before the case was judged. I omitted arguments because (a) Wooble had already implied TRUE in eir corrected judgement of CFJ 2979, and (b) no arguments whatsoever had been posted in favor of FALSE. In any case, I'm completely unconvinced by yours; it's hard to interpret your message as anything other than an ambiguous registration followed by an unambiguous one.
