Index ← 3224 CFJ 3225 3226 → text
==============================  CFJ 3225  ==============================

    As [whatever Tanner's name is this month] didn't actually do
    anything, this is ineffective.


Caller:                                 ehird

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by ehird:                        04 Jun 2012 15:09:58 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         12 Jun 2012 14:36:34 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     12 Jun 2012 16:29:46 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

The following email sent by omd:

I do what he just did.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Tanner Swett  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM, omd  wrote:
>> CFJ: "Sun, 27 May 2012 14:14:46 +0100".
> I retract this case.
> ―Machiavelli


Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

Machiavelli did do something (announce "I retract this case"), which
could lead to FALSE both trivially and substantively (if "what he just
did" is interpreted as referring to "announce 'I retract this case'").


Judge G.'s Arguments:

As the caller points out, there are a couple possible referents for
"what he just did", with different legal consequences:

1. Retract a case (which e *didn't* just do).
2. Post a message stating "I retract this case" (which e *did* just do).

Given the general tomfoolery and meta-tomfoolery around this set of
messages, it is not immediately clear what was being referred to or what
was intended, therefore the omd's retraction message failed to retract
a CFJ, due to unclear communication.

However, the Caller has asked me to judge whether omd's message was
ineffective *due to* Tanner's action failing.  It wasn't.  It was
ineffective because it was in and of itself an unclear message.