That's a fair point in response to my first argument. I noticed a few
rules that say 'posted' instead of published, so that should probably be
cleaned up. Still, the method you published the intent isn't
"unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation". You
even admit as much by saying "No, you didn't miss an intent (well, at
least not one that stated what I was doing)."
On 7/17/19 9:39 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I specifically address this: the definition of Objector in Rule 2124
does not use the broken verbiage, it says "An Objector to an intent to
perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and
not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent." - no
usage of "publish" or "announce".
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 10:36 PM, nch wrote:
On 7/17/19 9:19 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Arguments
The key (broken) wording here is from Rule 478:
A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a
public message.
This wording does not require that the public message actually
contains the "something" that I am publishing/announcing. This
wording effectively says that, for all X, a person "publishes" or
"announces" X by sending a public message.
By this reasoning everyone that has sent a public message in that
time has objected, since objecting would be a possible value of X.
Rule 2465 states that I can Declare Apathy without Objection. By
Rule 2595, I must fulfill certain conditions to do so. I will prove
that I have done so for each one individually:
1. "[I must have] published an announcement of intent that
unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation
specified the action to be taken and the method(s) to be used".
This invokes the definition of to "publish", which is specified
in Rule 478. Putting parentheses around the object of to
publish, "[I must have] published (an announcement of intent
that unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
obfuscation specified the action to be taken and the method(s)
to be used)". Going back to my paraphrased definition of to
"publish", the parenthesized phrase takes the place of the
placeholder X, and thus to "publish" such an announcement of
intent is to send a public message. I certainly have done so, an
example one is in evidence.
I don't see how this can be considered to be either unambiguous or
without obfuscation.
