On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> El Cheapo concurring opinion, use if you really must: >> >> Not every question is a CFJ, any more than every statement ever made >> in Agora Business is a CFJ. A specific directive is needed: eg "I call >> for judgement on the following question:" This directive is explicitly >> external to the statement itself. For example, to call CFJ 1676, comex >> used the following (Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> ' I call for judgement on the statement "this is a CFJ" ' > > This ignores the precedent of CFJ 1894, which established the general > equivalence of questions and statements.
CFJ 1894 does not address what external context or announced acts are required to make a Call a Call. The above argument does. For example, is the name of the game Agora? I just asked a question with no indication that it was an act of calling a CFJ. Unless we treat intend to treat every question ever asked as a CFJ, (and since questions=statements, every statement ever made) we need to rely on the external-to-statement/question reference act of "I call" to determine what the question should be treated as. Turning the question into "Is this a CFJ?" does not create this externally required act of "I call". Really, I didn't want to get into this. My I Ching based argument is far better (again, Really). -Goethe
