On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> for something in between (believe that the action is successful under
> a plausible interpretation of the rules?) because I don't think it
> make sense to permit people to try to get actions past us long enough
> to get into a ratified report when they
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> People will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not
>> believe the action would be successful if you don't include a
>> disclaimer. I don't think that's chillin
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> People will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not
> believe the action would be successful if you don't include a
> disclaimer. I don't think that's chilling really.
Even given the ridiculous level of criminal cases brought forward
fo
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>a) An attempted speech act is equivalent to a claim that the
>> person will perform the action by sending the message.
>
> Why on earth are we codifying this? Fo
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>a) An attempted speech act is equivalent to a claim that the
> person will perform the action by sending the message.
Why on earth are we codifying this? For years, we have not punished
folks for merely failing to perform an action. The
Ed Murphy wrote:
>a) An attempted speech act is equivalent to a claim that the
> person will perform the action by sending the message.
I think this muddies things. You're relying on the common understanding
of "attempted speech act", but that's an emergent concept some way remo
Proto-Proposal: Truth of speech acts
Amend Rule 2149 (Truthfulness) to read:
A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes
that in doing so e is telling the truth.
For the purpose of this rule:
a) An attempted speech act is equivalent to a claim that th
7 matches
Mail list logo
