Taral wrote:
>So we have two reasonable (IMO) interpretations of the statement that
>result in opposite conclusions. Would this not be sufficient grounds
>for a conclusion of UNDECIDABLE?
No. UNDECIDABLE is a substantive outcome on a par with TRUE and FALSE.
If you can't decide which substantive
On 9/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taral wrote:
> >Veracity: UNDECIDABLE
>
> Angling for a paradox win?
You spoil all my fun. :-D No, I have no idea what you're talking about.
> This argument suggests TRUE to me, not UNDECIDABLE. But I think you have
> a poor interpretation of the st
Taral wrote:
>Veracity: UNDECIDABLE
Angling for a paradox win?
>The statement assumes that a violation can necessarily be assigned to
>specific parts of a message, which is a false assumption. Rule 2149
>itself states "the truth or falsity of the whole is what is
>significant."
This argument sug
On 8/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Statement: A part of a message sent to a Public Forum that is quoting
>another message (even if the quote is intended to perform an
>action) is never a violation of Rule 2149 to publish.
[Proto-Judgement]
Veracity: UNDECIDABL
4 matches
Mail list logo
