comex wrote: >- action: claiming to dance in eir message with message-id
The term "dance" has a specialised meaning in the context of Agora, referring to a verbal (rather than kinaesthetic) activity. By that meaning, Goethe did in fact dance in that message. >- action: claiming to kill Goethe in eir message with message-id We have no such redefinition of "kill". The judge should look for evidence of whether Goethe is still alive, and whether ehird was (at the time of the message) making efforts that e could reasonably expect would lead to cessation of Goethe's life. >- action: claiming that the precedent from CFJ 1738 is that speech >acts carry truth values That's certainly a reasonable inference from CFJ 1738. A major part of the initiator's arguments, accepted by the judge, is based on an analysis where action announcements have truth values. Whatever the courts eventually rule on this precedent, there's no basis to suppose that root did not honestly believe in this interpretation of CFJ 1738. >- action: sending a message with message-id ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in which e >did not tell the truth (because e did not say anything) Heh. I see two reasonable ways to analyse this. First: the message contained no statements, so there was no instance of "mak[ing] a public statement [without] believ[ing] that in doing so e is telling the truth". Second: taking the message as a whole to be a single statement, it is (by default) the logical conjunction of all the top-level substatements contained within it. Having no substatements, we have the nullary conjunction, which is trivially true. These two analyses are largely equivalent. >- action: thinking up statements that will be public although they are >not true before e has sent them We have no rules impinging on freedom of thought. >- action: making public statements while being silent orally, thereby >not telling the truth (or anything) "Tell" does not imply oral activity. >- action: claiming in eir message with message-id ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that e >intended to appeal ehird's judgement of CFJ 1932, while in fact he did >not intend to appeal it Quite possibly guilty, though tricky to establish unless e confesses. -zefram
