On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, omd wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3237 > > > > ============================== CFJ 3237 ============================== > > > > The above-quoted message created a CFJ. > > > > ======================================================================== > > I'm going to have to disagree with G. in CFJ 3236 (though whether > that's my prerogative as judge of this case is debatable). "The usual > CFJ." is not equivalent to "CFJ: The usual CFJ." - there is absolutely > no indication that it should be considered self-referential, and it > was clearly not intended as such. It would be reasonable to transform > it to "I call the usual CFJ", but that doesn't call a CFJ on "The > usual CFJ." any more than "I submit a copy of my most recent proposal" > submits a proposal with the text "a copy of my most recent proposal". > > I agree that it does not clearly identify a statement to be inquired > into, so no CFJ was created. FALSE.
I apologize for not noticing 3236 was dependent on 3237; I would have waited on 3236 so as not to prejudice this 3237 one way or the other. I think it's a generally reasonable difference of opinion and defer to it in the sense that it nullifies 3236 as a CFJ. -G.
