On Nov 14, 2007 9:30 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it comes down to the interpretation of Murphy's "I agree to
> be bound by ...". Was e agreeing to create a single contract only,
> with potentially many parties? Or just a single contract with exactly
> one other party? Or mult
Ian Kelly wrote:
>But does such dissolution prevent anybody else from agreeing to be
>bound by it and forming the contract once again?
That's one of the things I was wondering about. If not, I believe the
new agreement would be a different contract from the first one. Then the
phrase "the Bake T
On Nov 14, 2007 4:29 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> >I agree to be bound by the following contract:
> >
> > 1) The name of this contest is Bake The Traitor.
> >
> > 2) The contestmaster of this contest is Murphy.
> >
> > 3) Any contestant other than comex who becomes
On 11/14/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we accept the contract's dubious synonymity of "contestant" =
> "party other than Murphy", in one second I'll cease to be a party,
> and the contract will dissolve.
Or perhaps after one second you became Murphy.
On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I agree to be bound by the following contract:
I don't think it's possible to join this contest. It also manifestly isn't
fair to all contestants... although contests don't have to be fair to
non-contestants.
Try again, I want points :D
signat
Ed Murphy wrote:
I agree to be bound by the following contract:
1) The name of this contest is Bake The Traitor.
2) The contestmaster of this contest is Murphy.
3) Any contestant other than comex who becomes a contestant
ceases to be a contestant one second later.
4) The contestm
6 matches
Mail list logo
