On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:56 PM, "Ian Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Whether an entity is biological is similarly not ratifiable, for the >> same reason. >> >> -root > > Goethe's arguments in CFJ 2165 would disagree with you.
Thanks for pointing that out; I wasn't paying attention to that CFJ. Goethe didn't address the "is biological" example, but e did address the "is wearing a hat" example. Eir arguments there were wrong: whether a person is wearing a hat is not (currently) part of the gamestate, so there is no gamestate for such a ratification to change, so such a ratification is impossible. If the rules did somewhere refer to a legal fiction of "is wearing a hat" (as opposed to a physical truth, such as the current use of "is biological" by R2150), then Goethe's argument would hold. I'm up in the air as to whether to appeal the judgement. The overall judgement of UNDETERMINED is probably correct. -root
