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?
