On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Caller's Arguments: > > Traditionally, the CFJ wrapper prevents the statement of a CFJ from > being asserted proper (we do not prosecute CFJing on false > statements). However, the precedent of CFJs 2079-80 imply that game > actions can in fact be taken in the statement of an inquiry CFJ. The > judge is specifically requested to consider the interactions of > statement, announcement, disclaimer, and inquiry.
Gratuitous arguments, just in case nobody else has already said this (maybe I have and then forgotten): If somebody states "I CFJ on this statement", they're taking the action "I CFJ on this statement" not because they're CFJing on it, but because they're stating it. You never stated "I transfer all my crops to the PNP". --Ivan Hope CXXVII
