Format for e-mail

CFJ:	2719
Interest Index:	0
Statement:	If judged to be UNDECIDABLE, the CFJ initiated in the quoted text would be a tortoise.
Caller:	coppro
Barred:	ais523
Judge:	Tiger
Judgement:	FALSE
Currently Eligible:	(none)

---

History:

Called by coppro	8 Oct 2009 18:09:59 GMT
Assigned to Tiger	25 Oct 2009 18:10:03 GMT
Judged FALSE by Tiger	26 Oct 2009 20:35:37 GMT

---

Caller's Arguments:

(8 Oct 2009 18:09:59 GMT)

Can this be construed as arising out of the CFJ itself? I 
think so, as it is very similar to the way by which "This statement is 
FALSE." would be dealt with - judged UNDECIDABLE, but since the paradox 
arises out of the CFJ, it's not a tortoise.

---

Caller's Evidence:

(8 Oct 2009 18:09:59 GMT)

Alex Smith wrote:
> I call for judgement on the statement "At no point in time between the
> moment this CFJ is assigned to a judge, and the next moment at which
> either rule 2215 is repealed, amended, or otherwise fails to be
> enforceable with its current meaning, will it be legal for the judge of
> this CFJ to publically make an undisclaimed statement with the same
> meaning as this one (i.e. replacing 'the judge of this CFJ' with the
> actual judge, etc.).", barring ə.

---

Gratuitous Arguments by Pavitra:

(8 Oct 2009 22:04:18 GMT)

Rule 2110 reads, in part:
      A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of
      a rule-defined action (actual or hypothetical, but not arising
      from that case itself, and not occurring after the initiation of
      that case) for which the question of veracity is UNDECIDABLE.

The action whose legality is in question is certainly "occurring after
the initiation of that case". FALSE.

---

Judge Tiger's Arguments:

(26 Oct 2009 20:35:37 GMT)

The relevant part of R2110, quoted in Pavitra's argument, takes the
form of a "not a and not b". Neither a or b is true. The question of
legality does arise from the CFJ, and the hypothetical action whose
legality is in question does occur after the initiation of the case.