On 11/15/2011 12:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> This falls afoul of the precedent in CFJ 2737 (itself an extension of >>> the precedent in CFJ 1584), for the same reason that CFJ 3121 did. >>> >>> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1584 >>> http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2737 >> >> I do not believe that the precedent established in CFJ 1584 applies >> here, and accordingly I find fault with the reasoning in CFJ 2737. In >> particular, I do not believe it's possible to read an additional >> requirement of finititude into the rules where none exists. Rule 217 >> is clear; the text of the rules takes precedence, and the text of the >> rules says that me cashing an infinite promise is equivalent to me >> cashing it; it specifies no termination condition. > > Except for voting, there is no text in any rule that explicitly allows for > any sort of conditional or multiplied action. It's *all* precedence and > meta-rules surrounding the administrative convenience. I hate to say it, > but your reasoning is a classic case of the fallacy of (etc. etc.).
Promises are very much rules-supported. The rules don't *explicitly* allow infinite chains, but they're written in such a way that you have to infer an unwritten extra rule to *suppress* infinite chains.
