On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > We've allowed CFJs to be self-referential plenty of times; e.g. "This > CFJ is false." The phrase "Also, the usual CFJ." is sufficiently self- > referential to call a CFJ on the statement "The usual CFJ".
I disagree. The sentence "The usual CFJ." is clearly an abbreviation for "I call a CFJ on the usual statement." As far as I can tell, there is no indication that "the usual statement" is the same thing as the announcement that calls a CFJ on it. I suppose you could argue that the sentence "The usual CFJ." conflates CFJs with their statements, meaning that since the CFJ itself—the call itself—is the statement "The usual CFJ", the statement of the CFJ must also be the statement "The usual CFJ." I don't think this reasoning is up to snuff; using a single term to refer to two things does not constitute a statement that they are the same thing. I permit anyone to, on my behalf, support any intent to file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3236. —Machiavelli
