Index ← 2772 CFJ 2773 2774 → text
==============================  CFJ 2773  ==============================

    Wooble is a player.


Caller:                                 Yally

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Yally:                        01 Mar 2010 19:34:55 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     06 Mar 2010 16:42:41 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                 06 Mar 2010 16:44:26 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:43, Geoffrey Spear  wrote:

> I indicate reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e
> intends to become a player at that time.

Was it intentional that this is EXACTLY 30 days (to the minute) from the
time you deregistered? I CFJ, II=2 on the following sentence. Wooble is a
player. I ask that the judge consider not only eir odd sentence structure of
registration, but the timing of events. Additionally, e should strive to
establish some sort of timing precedent.


Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

Wooble's use of "e intends" rather than "I intend" may constitute
sufficient ambiguity to make this FALSE, regardless of timing.

I recommend that the judge certify the typical practice of
interpreting Rule 478's last paragraph as "the time in the Date:
header, except when other headers indicate that that time is
significantly incorrect", and that no such exception exists in
this case.


Gratuitous Evidence by Murphy:

Here are the date-stamped headers from my receipt of Wooble's
deregistration, abbreviated for readability, all times on left in UTC:

  18:44:05 Received: from
  18:44:05 Received: from by
  18:44:02 Received: from by
  18:43:39 Received: from by
  18:43:37 Received: by ewy20
  18:43:37 Received: by
  18:43:17 Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:43:17 -0500

and from my receipt of eir alleged re-registration (* = later,
x = earlier, ! = same):

 *18:44:09 Received: from
 *18:44:09 Received: from by
 x18:44:01 Received: from by
 !18:43:39 Received: from by
 *18:43:38 Received: by wyf23
 *18:43:38 Received: by
 *18:43:18 Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:43:18 -0500


Judge Murphy's Arguments:

See my gratuitous arguments and evidence.

It's reasonably clear that Wooble intended to test a couple of
borderline issues, hence reasonable ambiguity exists, hence FALSE.