Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2981 judged TRUE by Murphy

2011-03-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: > G. wrote: > > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> Judge Murphy's Arguments: > >> > >> I interpret "modify" as limited to changing an existing value, not > >> initializing an aspect that previously lacked a value. > >> > > > > Isn't this in direct

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2981 judged TRUE by Murphy

2011-03-20 Thread Ed Murphy
G. wrote: > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Judge Murphy's Arguments: >> >> I interpret "modify" as limited to changing an existing value, not >> initializing an aspect that previously lacked a value. >> > > Isn't this in direct conflict with a judgement about a recent scam > failure, wh

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2981 judged TRUE by Murphy

2011-03-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: > Judge Murphy's Arguments: > > I interpret "modify" as limited to changing an existing value, not > initializing an aspect that previously lacked a value. > Isn't this in direct conflict with a judgement about a recent scam failure, where "modify" or a sy