On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the 2069 precedent is irrelevant here (as Judge Tanner L. Swett says > in 2830).
I disagree; even though 2069 was FALSE because an announcement is an action, ais523 made a stronger argument in eir reasoning. > I think your 3000 judgement works in conjunction with the original 1971 and > reverses 2830 (which is not bad, though worth a mention), and stands on its > own merits irrespective of this confused set of precedents. Thing is, precedent aside, I don't think my judgement is correct. As I argued way back in CFJ 2069, "I do X. Disclaimer: The previous statement may be false." is not really saying anything about the truth value of whether I do X; there is no information content, so I'm not announcing that I perform the action. Rather, it's equivalent to announcing "I might be doing X."
