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
>

Reply via email to