On Sat, 9 Feb 2013, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3295
>
> ============================== CFJ 3295 ==============================
>
> I CAN nominate Tweedledee in the Herald election
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Caller: ais523
Before I judge this, it seems to me to be a fairly straightforward
application of Rule 2338:
If cashing a promise would lead, through its own actions or
actions directly caused by its cashing, to a value being
indeterminate an instant after the promise is cashed, then
(other provisions of this or other rules notwithstanding) it
CANNOT be cashed.
This applies all the way to the top promise, Contrariwise. Caller, do
you have an argument against this? Regardless of what is going on or
how the message is built up, via promises or text messages, the function
of your scam depends upon a promise being cashed, and as a direct result
an indeterminate value existing.
What am I missing?
-G.
