On 6/8/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Should I then be expecting a refutation of my proto-judgment of CFJ 1660?
I'm not entirely happy with your reasoning on those CFJs, but actually
I was pondering refuting your proto-judgement of CFJ 1659. I think
prohibiting a word or phrase from having contextually-defined meanings
is an unreasonably strict interpretation of R754. I haven't formed
an opinion yet on whether your judgement is wrong or whether R754 is
genuinely unreasonably strict.
I agree that it is unreasonably strict. But R754 is quite clear,
which leads me to believe the latter.
-root
