I'm forwarding this message, which I originally sent to omd, to a-d in the hopes that it might find an answer here. I feel kind of awkward doing this, but it needs an answer so I can resolve the case, and I don't have time at the moment to draft a better email.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Sorry for not getting to this sooner, I've been busy. I'd like some advice about how to proceed with this CFJ. Your motion to reconsider has been filed, and it's very reasonable. The problem is that I'm having trouble coming up with logic that supports my judgment. Instinctively, this situation feels, well, fuzzy. It seems like this is the kind of issue that's ripe for interpretation, but I'm having a hard time putting my finger on exactly why. The best I can figure out is that it probably has something to do with the difference between a term "being defined" and it "having meaning". To put that another way, we would interpret shinies as existing even if they were defined by no rule, and by no dictionary. The only way I can think of to use that to reach a ruling would be to say that the kind of implied meaning that the term would have is too weak to trigger the clause, and that explanation is so flimsy it's laughable. Still, I have a strong gut feeling that *something* here is ambiguous. You seemed to agree with me, as you said that "I suspect it’s entirely possible to come up with a definition that comports with the judge’s result". I would really appreciate it if you could help me with some suggestions. Even a plausible explanation would be enough, as an outcome of TRUE is so strongly supported by the other factors. Thank you, -Aris
