Ian Kelly wrote: >Is it wise to read it that way? Ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet.
There's a lot of semantic theory about interpreting counterfactuals. It's certainly not dangerous for situations that are reasonably conceivable. The problem that you refer to only really arises with counterfactuals that undermine fundamental modes of thought. "Would I be able to deregister BobTHJ if 1 + 1 were equal to 3?" would be thus problematic. It's a more immediate problem if you *don't* read R2160(d) that way. Suppose that I want to deputise for the assessor. You'd read the rule as asking "Can I hold the position of assessor?", to which the answer is clearly no: I haven't been installed into that office, so under the rules of Agora it's impossible for me to currently be assessor. Anyway, I wrote it as a counterfactual conditional, I'm somewhat surprised that Goethe interpreted it differently. -zefram
