On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 3:54 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > 1. In the Ricemastor's Report linked in evidence, "blob" without > additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who > registered from the email address recorded as "cearguizoni1 at gmail > dot com". > > 2. In the FLR linked in evidence, "Blob" without additional annotation > unambiguously refers to the person who was last registered from the > email address recorded as "malcolmr at cse.unsw.edu.au".
I withdraw the above CFJs (due to inaccurate email address and a better example arising). I CFJ (two linked CFJs): 1. In the Herald's Weekly Report linked in evidence, "blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who registered from the email address recorded as "cearguinzoni1 at gmail dot com". 2. In the Herald's Monthly Report linked in evidence, "Blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who was last registered from the email address recorded as "malcolmr at cse.unsw.edu.au". Evidence: Herald's Weekly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017107.html Herald's Monthly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017108.html Registrar's Weekly Report noting the email of current player 'blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017106.html Registrar's Monthly Report noting the last known email of former player 'Blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017011.html Arguments: The Herald's Weekly and Herald's Monthly reports linked in evidence were both published by the same officer on the same day. One lists 'blob' with an amount of radiance, one lists 'Blob' as the holder of some patent titles. Neither report has any comments to resolve this (alleged) ambiguity. Same officer's reports, same day, read back-to-back - how are the two entities being distinguished? Is the capital letter enough? The current context of discussion? If "the current context" is sufficient, does that become insufficient as time passes/for future historical viewers? Is that enough certainty for radiance self-ratification, or patent title ratification? Or are these reports ambiguous? -G.
