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
