Sorry, there should be a "that" in my initial quote, the noun phrase
being "an announcement of intent *that unambiguously, [...] specified
the action intended to be taken and the method(s) to be used".
If the sentence were to instead read "A person published an announcement
of intent that clearly quacked." (all I did was simplify the part after
"that", it is obvious that the wording "that clearly quacked" modifies
"announcement [of intent]".
And, anyway, if this reading is correct, as ais523 notes, we have bigger
problems than whether or not I have Declared Apathy.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 10:59 PM, nch wrote:
On 7/17/19 9:50 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Since the "unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
obfuscation" is an adjective phrase that modifies "an announcement of
intent", it, too, is brought into the scope of the placeholder (X),
and thus I 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", as I
have sent a public message. Your argument would hold if the clarity
phrasing were to instead apply to the act of publishing, but it is
broken because it applies to the noun "announcement".
Jason Cobb
Those are adverbs, not adjectives. They modify 'published' as in
"unambiguously published" They do not, and cannot modify "an
announcement of intent." "Unambiguously announcement" is unnatural,
and incorrect. It wold be "unambiguous announcement".
On 7/17/19 10:47 PM, nch wrote:
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posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that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.
