From: Wes Contreras <>
To: agora-off <>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 1160 DISMISSED by Crito
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 3:43 PM

                              CFJ 1160

    The phrase "We hereby perform whatever actions are necessary to
    cause X to happen" unambiguously indicates intent to perform said


Called by:           Wes

Judge:               Crito
Judgement:           DISMISSED

Judge selection:

Eligible:            Crito, elJefe, Elysion, harvel, Kolja, Lee,
                     Murphy, Palnatoke, Peekee, Steve

Not eligible:
Caller:              Wes
Barred:              -
Had their turn:      Annabel, Beefurabi, Blob, Chuck, Michael
Already served:      -
Defaulted:           -
By request:          -
On Hold:             Oerjan



Called by Wes:                        24 Aug 1999 09:50:13 -0700
Assigned to Crito:                    30 Aug 1999 13:10:39 -0700
DISMISSED by Crito:                   31 Aug 1999 16:26:45 -0400
Judgement Published:                  As of this message


Caller's Arguments:



Evidence attached by the Caller:



Judge's Arguments:

I had an immediate reaction to this statement, thinking to return a
quick judgement.  As I was typing it up, I suddenly realized that I
had made an unwarranted assumption.  The CFJ statement itself is
actually ambiguous. Does "said action" refer to "whatever actions
are necessary" or to "X"?

This CFJ asks the judge to make a reasonable inference as to the
state-of-mind of the hypothetical speaker of the phrase based on the
contents of the phrase.

If "said action" refers to "whatever actions are necessary", then I
would say that the state of mind is such that the speaker believes
that said action has already been performed, therefore indiactes
no further intention. So FALSE.

If "said action" refers to "X", then things are more complicated.
First, let's assume X can be thought of as an action - not
unreasonable. Then is X something that the speaker can perform? If
so, then I would think TRUE, this indicates that the speaker
intends for X to happen, i.e. intends to perform X.

However, maybe X is something that can only happen indirectly as the
result of other actions on the part of the speaker.  If so, then
it must be FALSE, since there is no intention to perform X, although
there is intention to perform X's antecedents.

All in all, it is my opinion that this CFJ cannot logically admit
to either TRUE or FALSE because of its ambiguity and lack of
specificity. I hereby move to DISMISS this CFJ, under R1565 ii).