DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2811 judged TRUE by Yally
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 23:37 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 07/14/2010 11:07 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2811
=== CFJ 2811 (Interest Index = 0)
Warrigal is a Player.
Despite the fact that it certainly isn't, I purport the following
document to be part of an official report: {Warrigal never held the
Patent Title Left in a Huff.}
I CFJ {I can
Proposal: Heft in a Luff (II=0, AI=1.5, Distributable)
{{{
Ratify {Warrigal never held the Patent Title Left in a Huff}.
}}}
Proposal: Unanimous Consent (II=0, AI=3, Distributable)
{{{
Amend Rule 2202 by replacing the first paragraph with:
Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a
public document, specifying its scope. If
that document is an official report or a substantial portion
thereof, until such a time as that report or portion is again
ratified, the date and scope of the ratification become a part
of the report.
}}}
-coppro
(Leaving the entire message quoted literally, because it's potentially
relevant to the below CFJs, especially the second.)
I CFJ on the statement In the above-quoted message, coppro purported a
document to be part of an official report.
Arguments: This is ISIDTID again. Saying that you purport something does
not actually mean that you necessarily purport it. In the above message,
coppro purported to purport a document to be part of an official report,
but did not actually purport it to be part of an official report (in
fact, e purported the document in question /not/ to be part of an
official report).
I CFJ on the statement In the above-quoted message, coppro submitted a
CFJ.
Arguments: It certainly looks like e was trying to, but the CFJ
submission starts with an unmatched opening brace, making it unclear
where, exactly, the CFJ ends. Is there an actual CFJ there, or does the
ambiguity make it invalid?
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2811 judged TRUE by Yally
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:30 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I CFJ on the statement In the above-quoted message, coppro purported a document to be part of an official report. Arguments: This is ISIDTID again. Saying that you purport something does not actually mean that you necessarily purport it. In the above message, coppro purported to purport a document to be part of an official report, but did not actually purport it to be part of an official report (in fact, e purported the document in question /not/ to be part of an official report). Gratuitous: CFJ 2292
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2811 judged TRUE by Yally
ais523 wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 23:37 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 07/14/2010 11:07 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2811
=== CFJ 2811 (Interest Index = 0)
Warrigal is a Player.
Despite the fact that it certainly isn't, I purport the following
document to be part of an official report: {Warrigal never held the
Patent Title Left in a Huff.}
I CFJ {I can
Proposal: Heft in a Luff (II=0, AI=1.5, Distributable)
{{{
Ratify {Warrigal never held the Patent Title Left in a Huff}.
}}}
Proposal: Unanimous Consent (II=0, AI=3, Distributable)
{{{
Amend Rule 2202 by replacing the first paragraph with:
Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a
public document, specifying its scope. If
that document is an official report or a substantial portion
thereof, until such a time as that report or portion is again
ratified, the date and scope of the ratification become a part
of the report.
}}}
-coppro
(Leaving the entire message quoted literally, because it's potentially
relevant to the below CFJs, especially the second.)
I CFJ on the statement In the above-quoted message, coppro purported a
document to be part of an official report.
Arguments: This is ISIDTID again. Saying that you purport something does
not actually mean that you necessarily purport it. In the above message,
coppro purported to purport a document to be part of an official report,
but did not actually purport it to be part of an official report (in
fact, e purported the document in question /not/ to be part of an
official report).
I CFJ on the statement In the above-quoted message, coppro submitted a
CFJ.
Arguments: It certainly looks like e was trying to, but the CFJ
submission starts with an unmatched opening brace, making it unclear
where, exactly, the CFJ ends. Is there an actual CFJ there, or does the
ambiguity make it invalid?
NttPF
