On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Speaking personally, I moved to REASSIGN 1651, not just because the > judge lacked understanding, but because this lack appeared to be so > severe that I believed e would continue to lack understanding even if > the issue were explained more carefully; in other words, I disbelieved > "that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement if given > a new opportunity". I do not disbelieve this wrt Wooble and 1937.
You know, I really never understood what was so bad about Quazie's judgement of CFJ 1651. Compared to Murphy's unappealed judgement it had the same outcome; the former had half a sentence of arguments leading up to that outcome, which isn't exactly amazing, but the latter had *none*, considering that it started with "The statement is straightforwardly true." Murphy's judgement had an example and a side comment, while Quazie's had a different side comment. Sure, one of Zefram's treatises might have been preferable to Quazie's arguments, but I don't think either set of arguments for the case actually addressed the issue at hand (whether the validity of the initiation of an Agoran decision can change retroactively). Yet one was described as "largely incoherent" while the other was allowed to stand. No offense to any of the referenced judges.
