On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding 1903, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM with the
> following concurring opinion:
>
> Goethe's original judgement of CFJ 1903 alludes to the following
> interpretation:
>
>Questions are not statements.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding 1903, I intend to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM with the
> following concurring opinion:
>
> Goethe's original judgement of CFJ 1903 alludes to the following
> interpretation:
>
>Questions are not statements
root wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not unappealable. AFFIRM reassigns the prior judgement, which starts a
>> fresh two-week timer for appealing that assignment.
>
> No, AFFIRM and OVERRULE both prevent further appeal of the case. From
> Rule
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Arguments:
> > The arguments given in Wooble's purported causing the panel to judge
> > CFJ 1903a are not labeled as a concurring opinion and th
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not unappealable. AFFIRM reassigns the prior judgement, which starts a
> fresh two-week timer for appealing that assignment.
No, AFFIRM and OVERRULE both prevent further appeal of the case. From
Rule 911:
However, ru
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arguments:
> The arguments given in Wooble's purported causing the panel to judge
> CFJ 1903a are not labeled as a concurring opinion and therefore do not
> constitute one. While it could be argued that the satisfying t
woggle wrote:
> woggle's consent in CFJ 1903a required the panel to publish a
> concurring opinion if it judged AFFIRM, which is only possible if done
> simulatenously with the assigning of judgement.
Gratuituous counterargument: Your consent could have been reasonably
parsed as either "I consen
root wrote:
> And FWIW, I think that assigning an unappealable judgement while
> making no attempt whatsoever to actually address the serious question
> at hand is simply deplorable.
Not unappealable. AFFIRM reassigns the prior judgement, which starts a
fresh two-week timer for appealing that as
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CFJ 1894's equivalence in my mind only applies for the purposes of
> determining the subject and validity of a call for judgement. I think
> the text must be evaluated independently of its use or non-use in
> calls for j
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 02 March 2008 1:26 Charles Reiss wrote:
> > The prior judge was improperly relied on a newer version of the rule
> > that included a bugfix for precisely this reason.
> >
> > The judgement is still appropriate, ho
On Sunday 02 March 2008 1:26 Charles Reiss wrote:
> The prior judge was improperly relied on a newer version of the rule
> that included a bugfix for precisely this reason.
>
> The judgement is still appropriate, however, because there is not a
> general equivalence of yes/no questions and statemen
On Sunday 02 March 2008 12:43 Ian Kelly wrote:
> And FWIW, I think that assigning an unappealable judgement while
> making no attempt whatsoever to actually address the serious question
> at hand is simply deplorable.
If it really comes down to it, we could always initiate a new CFJ, identical
to
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:01 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I support Murphy's call for appeal of CFJ 1903. In spite of reading this
> > > in the caller's arguments, I looked at the ruleset that contained
On Sunday 02 March 2008 12:11 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:01 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I support Murphy's call for appeal of CFJ 1903. In spite of reading this
>>> in the caller's arguments, I looked at the ruleset that contained R591/23,
>>> not the recently pa
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Wooble or comex writes a concurring opinion that arguably
> acknowledges Goethe's argument on appeal, I consent to the panel
> judging AFFIRM and publishing that concurring opinion.
Concurring opinion: I think this
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually root (sorry to keep coming back to this, it's bugging me), this
> is in fact where it falls down for me. I would say that:
>
> "I hereby initiate an inquiry CFJ on this sentence."
>
> is different from:
>
> I C
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Of course that question doesn't initiate a CFJ. But the question this
> case is concerned with was "Do I hereby initiate an inquiry CFJ on
> this sentence?" The CFJ 1894 translation of that would be "I hereby
> initiate an inquiry CFJ on this sentence." D
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
>> Or rather I should ask, how is the meaning ambiguous in a way that did
>> not apply equally in the case considered in CFJ 1894?
>
> Proposal 5425 was passed between CFJs 1894 and 1903.
>
> This was in fact the original point of this case, and I'm somewha
> Or rather I should ask, how is the meaning ambiguous in a way that did
> not apply equally in the case considered in CFJ 1894?
Proposal 5425 was passed between CFJs 1894 and 1903.
This was in fact the original point of this case, and I'm somewhat
surprised that the rather long discussion here
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Or rather I should ask, how is the meaning ambiguous in a way that did
> not apply equally in the case considered in CFJ 1894?
No more free judgement
For Affirm or Reassign
My opinion waits
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Judge pikhq limits it
> > Nonambiguous meaning
> > Is not the case here
>
> How is the translation in this case in any way ambiguous?
Or rat
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Judge pikhq limits it
> Nonambiguous meaning
> Is not the case here
How is the translation in this case in any way ambiguous?
-root
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The "question yes/no = equivalent statement true/false" is a legal fiction
> > that applies only after the CFJ is initiated. Until that CFJ i
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Note that my purpose in raising this argument is not to have this case
> judged along the same lines as CFJ 1894, but to have the court
> consider the full implication of that judgement and hopefully overturn
> or at least limit it.
Judge pikhq limits it
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "question yes/no = equivalent statement true/false" is a legal fiction
> that applies only after the CFJ is initiated. Until that CFJ is clearly
> initiated, the answer to the question (yes/no) is clearly different t
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Of course that question doesn't initiate a CFJ. But the question this
> case is concerned with was "Do I hereby initiate an inquiry CFJ on
> this sentence?" The CFJ 1894 translation of that would be "I hereby
> initiate an inquiry CFJ on this sentence."
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CFJ 1894 does not address what external context or announced acts are
> required
> to make a Call a Call. The above argument does. For example, is the name of
> the game Agora? I just asked a question with no indicati
On 2/22/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really, I didn't want to get into this. My I Ching based argument is far
> better (again, Really).
Win.
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> El Cheapo concurring opinion, use if you really must:
>>
>>Not every question is a CFJ, any more than every statement ever made
>>in Agora Business is a CFJ. A specific di
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El Cheapo concurring opinion, use if you really must:
>
>Not every question is a CFJ, any more than every statement ever made
>in Agora Business is a CFJ. A specific directive is needed: eg "I call
>for judgeme
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> If Wooble or comex writes a concurring opinion that arguably
> acknowledges Goethe's argument on appeal, I consent to the panel
> judging AFFIRM and publishing that concurring opinion.
No REMAND? But...but... I read the I Ching in anticipation! And it
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008 6:40 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the matter of the appeal of CFJ 1903, I intend to cause the panel
> > to judge AFFIRM.
>
> Given that the original judge supported the appeal, shoul
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008 6:40 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In the matter of the appeal of CFJ 1903, I intend to cause the panel
>> to judge AFFIRM.
>
> Given that the original judge supported the appeal, shouldn't you at
> least write a concurri
On Feb 18, 2008 10:04 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008 6:40 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the matter of the appeal of CFJ 1903, I intend to cause the panel
> > to judge AFFIRM.
>
> Given that the original judge supported the appeal, shouldn't you at
On Feb 18, 2008 6:40 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the matter of the appeal of CFJ 1903, I intend to cause the panel
> to judge AFFIRM.
Given that the original judge supported the appeal, shouldn't you at
least write a concurring opinion?
35 matches
Mail list logo
