comex wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't think so. Your judgement of 2039 maintained a literal
>> interpretation of what had already happened ("X should have happened,
>> Y actually happened"), while considering the spirit when deciding what
>> ought to happen next ("the overall effects on asset holdings were the
>> same, and the violation is too minor to bother punishing, so null
>> judgement"). In contrast, ehird appears to be arguing for, and Goethe
>> against, non-literal interpretation of what had already happened ("X
>> actually did happen"). That's an accepted part of the culture of some
>> nomics (e.g. the FRC), but not this one.
>
> You mean Goethe for, ehird against?
No, I don't. I may be misunderstanding the nature of the argument,
though, hence the "appears to be" disclaimer.
