omd wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:55 AM, ais523 wrote:
>>> Oh, this judgement definitely failed, by the way-- it's almost exactly
>>> parallel to CFJ 1631.
>>
>> Not really; CFJ 1361 had a blank body so there was not obviously an
>> action taking place, my message clearly was indicating a co
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 1:45 PM, ais523 wrote:
>> Any message sent to the business forum pretty strongly indicates an
>> action (evidence: the pseudo-tradition of objecting to empty
>> messages), but I wouldn't say a message with a quote does so more than
>> an entirely blank one, especially when
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:39 -0500, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:55 AM, ais523 wrote:
> >> Oh, this judgement definitely failed, by the way-- it's almost exactly
> >> parallel to CFJ 1631.
> >
> > Not really; CFJ 1361 had a blank body so there was not obviously an
> > action taking place,
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:55 AM, ais523 wrote:
>> Oh, this judgement definitely failed, by the way-- it's almost exactly
>> parallel to CFJ 1631.
>
> Not really; CFJ 1361 had a blank body so there was not obviously an
> action taking place, my message clearly was indicating a context.
Any message
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 19:40 -0500, omd wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:25 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 16:17 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2897
> >>
> >> === CFJ 2897 (Interest Index = 0) =
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:25 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 16:17 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2897
>>
>> === CFJ 2897 (Interest Index = 0)
>>
>> ehird was a Rebel in the most recent Rebel
On 21 November 2010 18:50, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Can you please provide your reasoning? Regardless of how the CFJ is judged,
> it is the platonic truth that matters.
Platonist scum!
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 13:50 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 10-11-20 06:20 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > I'm sorry, there had to be a time difference between the messages or it
> > wouldn't have worked. (I do think the correct judgement is TRUE, though,
> > although there isn't strong evidence either way.)
>
On 10-11-20 06:20 PM, ais523 wrote:
I'm sorry, there had to be a time difference between the messages or it
wouldn't have worked. (I do think the correct judgement is TRUE, though,
although there isn't strong evidence either way.)
Can you please provide your reasoning? Regardless of how the CFJ
9 matches
Mail list logo
