On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:05:42 pm comex wrote: > Really, the Agoran power system is completely broken. Any > high-power Rule that uses a term defined in a low-power Rule is > potentially a conduit for a "power escalation" by a scamster, and > often is.
On Thursday 09 January 2003 05:49:54 pm Steve Gardner wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Ed Murphy wrote: > > > In general, I do not believe it is possible to make an > > > absolutely immutable Rule. > > > > Indeed, I believe Goethe's suggested Power-4 Rule can be defeated > > by the following Power-1 Rule: > > > > Except for this Rule, "repeal" is defined as the > > natural-language definition of "butter". > > > > Except for this Rule, "fnord" is defined as the > > natural-language definition of "repeal". > > > > One second after this Rule is created, another Rule is > > automatically created with the following text: > > > > Upon the creation of this Rule, Rule ____ is hereby > > fnorded. > > To my mind, this is an example of 'amendment by stealth' of the > kind discussed in CFJ 858. I think it conflicts with the Rules the > meanings of whose terms it tries to change. H. CotC Murphy, would it be possible to get CFJ 858 into the database? Pavitra
