I can find more reputable dictionaries but "limit" is certainly capacious enough to include a prohibition by law. For example if Congress "limits" campaign finance donations, it doesn't physically stops them, it prohibits them.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:30 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > The definition as verb is to " > set or serve as a limit (the noun) to" so it's just the same > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:29 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> That's the definition of "limit" as a noun, not a verb. Rule 2125 >> clearly uses it as a verb. >> >> Jason Cobb >> >> On 6/20/19 10:28 PM, Rebecca 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 > -- >From R. Lee
