P.S. I know I'm late on all of my obligations, and I'll catch up on them this weekend.
-Aris On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
