On 11/4/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/4/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The statement could equally be equivalent to "Judging UNDECIDABLE is > > [generally] permissible" (FALSE), "Judging UNDECIDABLE is [sometimes] > > permissible" (TRUE), or even "Judging UNDECIDABLE is permissible [in > > this case]" (FALSE). As it stands, it contains zero context, which in > > my eyes makes it too vague for a true or false judgement. > > > > -root > > > > What I don't understand is why you didn't just CFJ on nonsense.
Because a nonsensical statement wouldn't fall under the province of R2110. -root
