-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
/
Copy path1129
83 lines (56 loc) · 2.77 KB
/
1129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
======================================================================
CFJ 1129
In posting a message to agora-business with the subject
"Maximize your website's traffic!", Steve committed the Crime of
Misrepresentation by stating, on or around lines 188-189 of the
body of the message,
"<> Call us--we'll answer any questions you may have and
provide a no-cost initial consultation. (310) 859-4659 "
======================================================================
Called by: Chuck
Judge: Blob
Judgement: FALSE
Judge selection:
Eligible: Blob, Murphy, Peekee, Vlad, Kolja A.,
elJefe, Michael, Morendil, Elysion, Crito,
harvel, David
Not eligible:
Caller: Chuck
Barred: Steve
Had their turn: Oerjan
Already served: -
Defaulted: -
By request: -
On Hold: -
======================================================================
History:
Called by Chuck: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 01:07:45 0500
Assigned to Blob: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:04:20
+0200
Judged FALSE by Blob: Wed, 5 May 1999 12:31:24 +1000
Judgement published: as of this message
======================================================================
Judge's Arguments:
The Caller has assumed that the word "we" in the text quoted was
intended to be interpreted as designating a group of people of which
Steve was a member. I find this unlikely. Steve has already admitted
that he intended for us to consider the message not to originate from
himself, but to come from a website advertising agency. So the most
reasonable antecedent of the word "we" in the text quoted would be
that agency.
Now, I am not in a position to check the validity of the correctness
under that interpretation. Such spam advertising as this is of
dubious truthfulness. But this ambiguity works both ways. If Steve
doubted the correctness of this statement (insofar as he had any
regard for it at all), he presented it to us with the same ambiguity.
On these grounds, I judge that Steve did not necessarily present this
information as correct, nor did he necessarily believe it was
incorrect, so he is innocent of the Crime of Misrepresentation.
======================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
Steve knows that neither he, nor any "we" which might reasonably
include Steve, has the phone number indicated.
======================================================================
Evidence attached by the Caller:
<none>
======================================================================