On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement "It is a thing."
I retract this. I CFJ on the statement "It is a thing.", barring Murphy.
--Warrigal, attempting to change the truth again
I CFJ on the statement "It is a thing." Note that by the precedent of
CFJ 1988 (which I don't particularly care for), it might not be an
entity.
In the future, I may CFJ on the statements "It is a being.", "It is a
referent.", "It is a concept.", and "It is an object."
--Warrigal
