Wooble wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Murphy, if you reject this as ambiguous I will eat your soul because my
>> intent
>> is clear.
>
> I'm so disappointed that I won't get to vote for you as CotC later
> today. Demanding that a CFJ with no statement is accepted is exactly
> the sort of attitude we all want in a CotC.
Actually, I did accept it. On further reflection:
1) While subject lines are discounted by CFJ 1784 when they're at
odds with the body, this is a case where the subject line is
referenced by the body ("and /it/ asks").
ISTR some other CFJ on a message whose subject line identified
itself as a proposal. My interpretation here may or may not be
compatible with that precedent, depending on whether the body of
that message referenced its subject. Either way, I think that
precedent ought to be dug up and reviewed; I was never comfortable
with the idea that subject lines are /never/ meaningful.
2) I interpreted "[This CFJ] asks whether [X]." as clearly identifying
X as the statement.
