On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/6/26 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Gratuitous argument: a reasonable person wouldn't agree to be bound by >> a contract so that restricted eir behavior in such a way. (On the >> other hand, "would cause" seems a bit weak; if it was worded "might >> cause" there might be a stronger argument for GUILTY, but it was >> hardly inevitable that agreeing to the pledge would result in an >> impaired ability to judge CFJs.) >> > > The pledge didn't restrict my behaviour at all.
I was referring to the protection racket contract, not the pledge. I'm not even going to try to argue about the reasonableness of agreeing to let anyone act on your behalf; you've already seen the result. I certainly wouldn't agree to a contract that forbid me to flip my posture to supine or go on hold for a few days while I'm on vacation.
