On 11/4/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > root 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. > > A judge may make a reasonable assertion as to which of the above the > unclear statement applies, and return a reasonable judgement or TRUE or > FALSE accordingly, provided e clarifies to which it applies for the > purpose of precedent. It should withstand appeal, and the caller's > recourse is to re-call the case with more clarity in the statement.
Under what circumstances would UNDECIDABLE then be appropriate due to the statement being "too vague"? -root
