On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 11:03:31PM -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Then the clause is simply broken, as it tries to do the impossible of
> placing an office-modifier on something that is not in fact an office.
I think that for consistency we have to read ``X and Y are mutually
exclusive Z'' as
* X and Y are Z; but
* X and Y are mutually exclusive.
Compare this to the switch situation. For example, rule 478/15 began
with the sentence:
Publicity is a stuck forum switch with values null, Discussion,
and Public.
This designated null, Discussion, and Public as the states of the
switch, while rule 2040 took care of ensuring mutual exclusivity.
Ignoring the need for a way of changing states, we could have
equivalently written the first sentence of rule 478 as
Null, Discussion, and Public are mutually exlusive states of a
forum.
We wouldn't have to write
Null, Discussion, and Public are states of a forum. Null,
Discussion, and Public are mutually exclusive states of a forum
because the first revision makes it clear that the three terms are
being used to designate states.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
I predict some potentially pernicious Platonism when some poor
proposal becomes plebic while some plucky player has positive voting
power on an ordinary proposal but naught on another (power being
purportedly appraised per player, per proposal).
-- root, in agora-discussion
