On Thursday 28 February 2008 5:04 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Ben Caplan wrote:
> > It seems that official documents would no longer be self-ratifying under
> > this proposal.
>
> They're not currently self-ratifying either, apart from the lists of
> assets in the reports
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that official documents would no longer be self-ratifying under this
> proposal. Is this deliberate, and if so, why is it a good idea? (If a
> document can be "secretly published" ala Rule , then its author can
On Thursday 28 February 2008 4:26 Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Split and Secure Ratification
> (AI = 3, please)
It seems that official documents would no longer be self-ratifying under this
proposal. Is this deliberate, and if so, why is it a good idea? (If a
document can be "secretly published"
Goethe wrote:
> pre-judicial reform and pre-MMI, the SHOULD has been implied in
> judgement for a long time. Why did Murphy's game-winning paradox
> work then?
Because there was a reasonably equal amount of evidence in favor
of each hypothetical gamestate.
Also, the pre-reform implication was a
4 matches
Mail list logo
