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 action. ====================================================================== 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 ====================================================================== History: 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). ======================================================================