On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 09:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > No, I'm not missing it. It's literally a claim that there was an error, and > > e did so. So e expressed a doubt through the method of claiming there was > > an error > > which is exactly what the rule says the method consists of (claim of error > > isn't > > even capitalized, while capitalization is generally inconsequential, it's > > support > > for it being a naturalistic thing that is done naturally by a claim that > > there is > > an error, not a term of art). > > Do you think a CFJ that points out an error in a report would thus also > be a CoE, then (and thus create a duty to decline, correct, create a > CFJ, or cite a CFJ; I assume you'd just cite the CFJ that was just > made)?
Sorry, I see this has already been settled in your argument's favor by CFJ 3458. As this conversation might show, I would have put Judge Sherlock's good-of-the-game argument on the other side, as I've seen that used scammily, but I'll respect that judgement.
