On Nov 28, 2007 5:21 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >============================== CFJ 1799 ============================== > >Judged UNDECIDABLE by BobTHJ: 23 Nov 2007 06:17:11 GMT > > I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgement. (Please join > me in appeal on Wednesday/Thursday; timing is tight to avoid the week > deadline for R2110.) Arguments: > > BobTHJ has subsequently claimed, in the discussion forum, that > "nkep..." has a specific meaning as a type of action, albeit in a > non-global context such as a contract. If such a local meaning were to be > relevant to CFJs then it would support a judgement of TRUE or FALSE for > CFJ 1799. This has become an issue in CFJ 1805a, where it is suggested > that such a local meaning could support a ruling that CFJ 1799 was in > fact about an action. > > I note that BobTHJ's statements on this in the discussion forum > contradict eir statement as judge of CFJ 1799 that "nkep certainly > is nonsensical". I suggest that BobTHJ was correct in CFJ 1799, that > "nkep..." is nonsensical, and that therefore the judge of CFJ 1805a need > not be troubled by any alleged meaning for "nkep...". > nkep would be nonsensical even if it were a defined action either in the rules or a contract. These statements are not contradictory.
BobTHJ
