Cool cool. It was a double whammy of precedence I was trying to set. 1 - you can CFJ on questions (non-controvertial) 2 - some future conditionals are legit outside of voting (but I tried to ensure that it was limited in scope)
Also - that judgement also implies that the case is still open, as I was barred from judging it. On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 13:22 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote: > > I am always willing to listen to your criticism G. - please let me know > what > > you thought I said, and how I can word things better in the future to > reduce > > confusion. > > Actually, thinking about it, the honest truth is that in cutting/pasting > everything, I lost CuddleBeam's barring message entirely, so skimming the > case > without that in there, all I could think was "what does barring have to > do with it? I thought this was about whether statements could be asked as > questions." So it wasn't your phrasing at all, it was the completely lost > context. > > > >
