Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Opinion on 2830a

2010-08-16 Thread Ed Murphy
G. wrote: > On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, comex wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Warrigal wrote: >>> This, this. >> >> G., if you're going to AFFIRM as well, can you please specify a >> substantive set of arguments? In particular, it would help if you >> made some reference to my arguments for

DIS: Re: BUS: Opinion on 2830a

2010-08-16 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: > I opine AFFIRM without prejudice. The original judgement suggests a > precedent that even a disclaimered statement violates Truthiness if you > don't reasonably believe it could be true. > > Also, I think the disclaimer was general enough to render the wh

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Opinion on 2830a

2010-08-14 Thread comex
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Warrigal wrote: > This, this. G., if you're going to AFFIRM as well, can you please specify a substantive set of arguments? In particular, it would help if you made some reference to my arguments for appeal, especially the cited CFJs. Thanks.

DIS: Re: BUS: Opinion on 2830a

2010-08-14 Thread Warrigal
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > I opine AFFIRM without prejudice.  The original judgement suggests a > precedent that even a disclaimered statement violates Truthiness if you > don't reasonably believe it could be true. I opine AFFIRM without prejudice for the same reason. —

DIS: Re: BUS: Opinion on 2830a

2010-08-13 Thread comex
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Also, I think the disclaimer was general enough to render the whole > list ineffective. If the effective statement is vague enough to be ineffective, surely it's too vague to violate Truthiness.