On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Whups, I was too late! This nullifies Zefram's arguments in 2087, > dunno what to do with that now. -Goethe
Zefram: "For the record, I am dubious about this interpretation of a statement being made, and action being taken, at a particular instant. Making the statement is a process which takes non-zero time, and the statement's truth is evaluated (and any actions take effect) in the context of that process." Maybe I'm misreading this, but it seems to me that the context of the process of making a statement contained in a message is the publication of that entire message. While the ordering of actions announced in a message can be significant, we should in general take the published message as a whole to take effect at the moment it was published, and non-action disclaimers should be applied to what they claim to apply to, regardless of where in the message they occur. I'd argue for a ruling of TRUE in 2086/2087 based on Zefram's arguments, and clearly you think the same arguments point to FALSE. My belief is that each statement in the message initiating CFJs 2086 and 2087 must be evaluated at the moment of the publication of that message. While I'm not sure a phrase like "simultaneous but ordered" makes sense, it's one I might use in this situation.
