On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote: > In particular, such disclosure had not happened at the time of message P > and hence [the first CFJ], and had occurred only to a non-public forum > at the time of message R and hence [the second CFJ].
Nice. And tricky. On the other hand to the above, there's what's known as discovery during the CFJ process. For example, let's say I CFJ on something "Ten years ago, Murphy transferred a papyrus to Blob". And let's say I haven't researched the question before calling the question. And this information predates the agoranomic archives. So I don't know the answer at the time of the CFJ, and, prima facie, finding the answer would take some unreasonable effort for most Agorans. However, when assigned to the CFJ, the Judge asks "does anyone know the answer?" and Murphy says "well, yes, I happen to have my sent-mail folder from 10 years ago, here's the evidence that I did do this." Basically, the factual information was set at time P, and if I get information during the judicial process (that technically existed at time P, even if it was hard to get) then I can judge TRUE for time P. If we didn't allow such after-the-fact discovery, then for every CFJ, the judge would have to "freeze eir mind" and judge based on what e knew at time P, discounting arguments in discussion or other facts that are later pointed out to em. Right? -G.
