I maintain that a SHALL NOT limits the permissibility of an action, not its performance. If the rule referred to a limit on an action, rather than the performance of an action, I might agree with you.
-Aris On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:28 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Limit, the first definition off of google > "a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or > pass." > > > does not = CANNOT, may not = SHALL NOT (or MAY NOT) . It fits directly from > the definition and from common sense. and from what the rule's intent was > and what it means to do. > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:18 PM Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Using your interpretation of "limit" would certainly get us out of this > > specific case, but it would set some ugly precendent about the word that > > I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. > > > > On 6/20/19 6:49 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > > I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my > > > interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to > > > whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by paradox, because they > > > haven't found an actual paradox! > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>> In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts > of > > >> the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is > > >> prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what > it > > >> says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the > > same > > >> formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in > the > > >> formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, > > and is > > >> properly considered a logical undecidability. > > >> > > >> FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically > > >> undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. > > >> > > >> Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft > > >> would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is > > >> still based on the forbidden interpretation. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Trigon > > > > > -- > From R. Lee >