On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 09:33 -0400, Quazie wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: >> > I judge CFJ 2471 FALSE. An announcement about the past that does not >> > fall into any of the categories in rule 869 is just a true statement, >> > not a registration action. >> >> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 Support. CFJ 2471 is >> trivially true, as I am currently a player and it is after I sent that >> message. I believe I didn't CFJ on what I wanted to. > > I interpreted "after" as "due to", but I should be more alert really, I > missed that interpretation. > > -- > ais523 >
If the sentence has two interpretations, one true and one false, is that of any interest? By judging it FALSE, the CFJ isn't correct as I'm currently a player, but by judging it TRUE the CFJ is incorrect as it didn't make me a player.
