Ian Kelly wrote: >I think that the arguments were clearly apropos to the CFJ, and that >the physical ordering is irrelevant. On the other hand, the CotC >apparently isn't currently required to reproduce the arguments at all, >so I shouldn't complain too loudly.
My policy is to reproduce arguments that are labelled as being attached to the CFJ. I do not take preceding discussion to be attached to the CFJ, because such discussion is generally part of an ongoing email thread, and is more rambling and more context-dependent than we like for the arguments in a CFJ. In this case it didn't occur to me that the paragraphs preceding the calling of the CFJ were intended to be attached to it. -zefram
