On 4/8/09 10:04 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 20:37 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > >> FALSE; Rule 2110 states that: >> >> A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of >> a rule-defined action. >> >> However, CFJ 2423 has determined what has happened, not whether >> something is legal or whether something is possible to happen. >> > I appeal this judgement (of CFJ 2443). I'd be happy with either TRUE or > FALSE with sensible arguments (happier with TRUE, of course), but I > strongly disagree with the reasoning here. Paradox claims after the > paradox has actually happened are traditionally considered stronger than > hypotheticals. It's generally possible to determine whether a > hypothetical rules-defined action is possible or legal; but it's also > generally possible to determine whether an actual rules-defined action > actually happened / was illegal, which is a pretty obvious definition of > possible/illegal in that case. In my opinion, the only controversy is > about whether the CFJ was specifically about the possibility or legality > of an action, not about whether determining what happened is the same as > determining what could happen. >
Gratuitous for any appeal: The judge's arguments are at bit unclear, but I believe the judgment is basically correct in that the statement of CFJ 2423 purported to determine which of several mechanisms were used (in that sense "what has happened"), not only whether the purported the rule change attempt was POSSIBLE or LEGAL. - woggle
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
