On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:17 PM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Arguments: The alleged "statement" of the CFJ created earlier in this > message is not actually a statement, but an email header, which cannot > sensibly have a truth value, and is anyway not a statement in the > ordinary-language sense. Thus, with no valid referent, the purported > attempt to call the CFJ actually fails.
Arguments: 2924, 2933
