============================== CFJ 1805 ==============================
CFJ 1799 is an inquiry case on the permissibility of an action.
Called by BobTHJ: 23 Nov 2007 06:17:11 GMT
Assigned to pikhq: 27 Nov 2007 16:24:38 GMT
Judged TRUE by pikhq: 28 Nov 2007 02:54:00 GMT
Appealed by root: 28 Nov 2007 05:46:33 GMT
Appealed by Zefram: 28 Nov 2007 11:29:26 GMT
Appealed by Wooble: 28 Nov 2007 13:39:50 GMT
Appeal 1805a: 28 Nov 2007 16:09:09 GMT
OVERRULED to FALSE on Appeal: 05 Dec 2007 17:50:40 GMT
Judge pikhq's Arguments:
I judge this TRUE. It does not matter *what* that string of gibberish means:
it *is* asking whether or not it is permissible, so this is obviously an
inquiry case inquiring about the permissibility of an action (regardless of
whether or not it actually is permissible).
Appellant root's Arguments:
I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support. It clearly does
matter what the string of gibberish means; if it is not an action,
then the case cannot be about the permissibility of an action. This
is true even if we do accept that it is about permissibility, which I
do not, since the statement is clearly nonsensical.