On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keep in mind the "As in 4" part of the CFJ, which was "if the phrasing
> is informal..."
(...)
> This CFJ, on the other hand, concerns private communications along the lines
> of:
>
> {{From Bob: Hey Alice, I'll show you mine if you show me yours --
> Agoran Poker hands, that is.}
> {From Alice: OK. Mine is 10S JS QS KS 2C, what's yours?}}
>
> This judgment says that this communication isn't sufficient evidence
> of an agreement with the intent by both Bob and Alice to be bound by
> it. That isn't to say that the first, more formal, communication
> wouldn't be sufficient evidence.
Hm, I probably should have looked at the DF before replying.
It seems to me that the judgement entered is technically appropriate,
but the arguments are misleading. The main problem is that the initial
CFJ also overlooked the issue of formally worded private
communications, which I was really hoping to see addressed.
Perhaps the best course of action would be to appeal and AFFIRM with a
concurring opinion.
Pavitra
