comex wrote: > On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> ========================= Criminal Case 2181 ========================= >>> >>> root broke Rule 2170 by making the statement "I am comex.". >> Lacking any other argument, I find root UNIMPUGNED. I see no reason to >> believe that root intended anyone to be mislead by eir (public) >> statement. It's pretty clear to me that it's a (failed) attempt to >> test Rule 2170. > > Y'know, root, my claim to be you [1] has self-ratified. You could now > resolve your attempt to initiate a criminal case against me for making > that claim. > > (Unfortunately, this is made somewhat pointless by the fact that, > before the self-ratification, root [or anyone] could achieve exactly > the same effect by supporting the attempt and initiating the case as a > supporter; oh well.) > > [1] > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013778.html
Relevant text from this claim: > I am root. > > I intend, with 2 support, to initiate a criminal case against comex > for breaking Rule 2170 by making the above statement. I'm interpreting this as equivalent to "Disclaimer: the above statement may be false", hence ambiguous enough not to self-ratify.
