On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ============================== CFJ 2099 ============================== > > I transfer all my crops to the PNP.
I find that that precedents in CFJs 2079-2080 are irrelevant to this case; in those cases the announcement that the initiator was initiating a CFJ was itself the statement to be considered by the judge, while in this case the initiation of the case is separate from the statement to be evaluated. Since Rule 591 tells us that the purpose of an inquiry case is to determine the veracity of a statement, we should generally take the statement in question to be a simple statement of fact to be evaluated as long as that's a reasonable interpretation of the statement. A CFJ into "I hereby transfer all of my crops to the PNP" would not lend itself to such an interpretation, and had that been the wording of the statement in this case, it would be reasonable for the recordkeepor of crops to record that the initiator of the case had transferred all eir crops, and assuming the transfer was possible the statement would be TRUE. However, in this case the statement can reasonably be interpreted as a simple statement of fact, so we shouldn't take it to be both a statement to be evaluated for veracity and an announcement. As I've seen no evidence that Pavitra does generally transfer all eir crops to the PNP (or indeed that e's ever transferred any crops at all to the PNP), I judge FALSE. --Wooble
