Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2830a ================= Appeal 2830a (Interest Index = 0) ================== Panelist: Murphy Decision: REMAND Panelist: G. Decision: REMAND Panelist: Tanner L. Swett Decision: REMAND ======================================================================== History: Appeal initiated: 13 Aug 2010 19:59:46 GMT Assigned to Murphy (panelist): 14 Aug 2010 02:39:42 GMT Assigned to G. (panelist): 14 Aug 2010 02:39:42 GMT Assigned to Tanner L. Swett (panelist): 14 Aug 2010 02:39:42 GMT Tanner L. Swett moves to REMAND: 15 Aug 2010 01:39:12 GMT Murphy moves to REMAND: 16 Aug 2010 18:36:50 GMT G. moves to REMAND: 16 Aug 2010 18:51:26 GMT Final decision (REMAND): 21 Aug 2010 02:39:42 GMT ======================================================================== Appellant omd's Arguments: I appeal this. Taking actions with disclaimers is a relatively common practice, and has always been accepted as shorthand for specifying "If possible, I do X" in the rest of the message. Whether my succeeded in doing anything might be ambiguous, though. See the confused progression of CFJs 1935 1971, 2069, and (especially) 2227. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy: I opine AFFIRM without prejudice. The original judgement suggests a precedent that even a disclaimered statement violates Truthiness if you don't reasonably believe it could be true. Also, I think the disclaimer was general enough to render the whole list ineffective. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by Tanner L. Swett: This, this. On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Warrigal wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ed Murphy wrot= e: >> I opine AFFIRM without prejudice. The original judgement suggests a >> precedent that even a disclaimered statement violates Truthiness if you >> don't reasonably believe it could be true. > > I opine AFFIRM without prejudice for the same reason. > > -Judicial Panelist Tanner L. Swett ======================================================================== Panelist Tanner L. Swett's Arguments: Eh, I opine REMAND without prejudice, noting that the judge apparently overlooked the presence of a disclaimer. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by G.: Aaand... this. On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: > > I opine AFFIRM without prejudice. The original judgement suggests a > > precedent that even a disclaimered statement violates Truthiness if you > > don't reasonably believe it could be true. > > > > Also, I think the disclaimer was general enough to render the whole > > list ineffective. > > This is a contradictory pair of statements. I side with the latter statement, > therefore I opine OVERTURN/NOT GUILTY without prejudice. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy: There was not necessarily a contradiction in those arguments. As I understood it, Yally's judgement (still up in the air, but at least it's been put forth for consideration) amounts to: Stating "X (disclaimer: Y)", while fully aware that X is false for reasons unrelated to Y, may violate Truthiness despite the disclaimer. Now this *may* fall apart on the grounds that Y is overly broad and thus is related to X after all. (I would've changed my opinion to REMAND, but I thought all three opinions had already been given; I missed that the second and third opinion messages were both from Tanner.) But it may not. The relevant precedent was of the form "single statement (disclaimer: this may fail)", while this case pertains to the form "series of statements (disclaimer: some of these may fail)" - and we might decide to interpret that "some" is sufficient to imply "because I CANNOT, because the recipient doesn't qualify". ======================================================================== Panelist Murphy's Arguments: I revise my opinion to REMAND without prejudice, recommending that the original judge explicitly address how the form "series of actions (disclaimer: some of these may fail)" compares to the form "single action (disclaimer: this may fail)" the latter of which is held by precedent to amount to a null statement (due to overly broad disclaimer), thus unable to violate Truthiness. ======================================================================== Panelist G.'s Arguments: I forgot that opinions could be revised nowadays; I would have asked if you were willing to remand first rather than jumping to overrule. I revise my opinion to REMAND without prejudice. ========================================================================