Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2728

===================  CFJ 2728 (Interest Index = 1)  ====================

    G. has opined REASSIGN on CFJ 2696a.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  coppro
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 2728a
Decision:                               (pending)

========================================================================

History:

Called by ais523:                       03 Nov 2009 14:13:21 GMT
Assigned to coppro:                     06 Nov 2009 03:18:05 GMT
Judged FALSE by coppro:                 06 Nov 2009 03:32:44 GMT
Appealed by Pavitra:                    06 Nov 2009 06:01:52 GMT
Appealed by Tiger:                      06 Nov 2009 07:40:12 GMT
Appealed by c.:                         06 Nov 2009 12:42:03 GMT
Appeal 2728a:                           06 Nov 2009 12:42:03 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

Does a statement about the future (or about the future
relative to the past) necessarily imply that that particular action is
taking place now? I parse G.'s statement as a statement that e will
opine REASSIGN at some point, but not necessarily now.

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 17:25 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > =================  Appeal 2696a (Interest Index = 1)  ==================
> >
> > Panelist:                               Tiger
> > Decision:
> >
> > Panelist:                               G.
> > Decision:
> >
> > Panelist:                               Yally
> > Decision:
> >
> > ========================================================================
> > Judge coppro's Arguments:
> >
> > (note: I have good reasoning for this. I'm not explaining it because I
> > want to see what will happen if I don't)
> >
> > ========================================================================
> 
> What will happen is I'll consider it an annoying way to waste the Court's
> time and opine REASSIGN.

========================================================================

Judge coppro's Arguments:

FALSE. Interpreted literally, G. was making a statement about the 
future, not performing an action. This is vague enough to lead the 
message to fail the "clear and unambiguous" requirement of actions taken 
by announcement.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

(a) I intended the message to deliver an opinion;
(b) upon reading and before sending I thought "hmm that looks CFJ-level
    ambiguous... but I'll send it anyway... while being sure to send it
    to business and use the exact phrase and capitalization 'opine
REASSIGN'."

========================================================================