On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 09:13 +0100, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 20:12 -0700, John Smith wrote: > > Hi, I'm Bucky. I'm here to (again) attempt to deliver the following > > message: > > > > If I have not already done so, I explicitly initiate an inquiry case > > on the statement "Due to Rule 2215, it would be illegal for me to make > > an unqualified public statement that is identical to this statement." > > > > I am aware of CfJ 1887, which says that stating the liar paradox would > > violate Rule 2215. Since this statement is similar in nature to the > > liar paradox, its truth follows directly from CfJ 1887. This does > > not, however, mean that it isn't a paradox. > > NoV: Murphy violated the power-2 rule 1868 by failing to assign a judge > to the inquiry CFJ created in the above-quoted message as soon as > possible after it required a judge.
I contest this, as it was indeed assigned (to omd), and I missed it in the checks I was making. (I found the assignment after Bucky pointed it out to me on IRC.) -- ais523
