On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, comex wrote: > On Saturday 17 November 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote: >> This result is not merely unsatisfactory, it's pure *bullshit*. > > Perhaps. I at least would consider the appeal at least in part a political > move.
*I'm* the one still think UNDECIDED is reasonable, and I came up with arguments supporting it which I think are perfectly fine. I think that root should be the winner. But this judgement is an incorrect precedent. [Side note: This is a place that a Concurrent Opinion would be my favored option, if it still existed.] > There is no doubt that the judge could have come up with sufficient > arguments for eir judgement of UNDECIDABLE, if pressed to. If *pressed* to?? The rules *require* em to! The judgement is actually self-contradictory: 1. In eir original (caller/judge) arguments, e claims that e must judge as e does because IRRELEVANT is unreasonable, which is a key point of the argument. 2. In the new judgement e accepts that IRRELEVANT is reasonable. 3. And then says "e stands by eir original argument." So to sum up: E accepts that IRRELEVANT is reasonable, and tben judges as e does based [in part] on the argument that IRRELEVANT is unreasonable! This just shouldn't stand as precedent. -Goethe