On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> CoE: Neither ais523 nor ehird has 100 points.
> Grr, I was hoping nobody would notice. Anyway, that was only the first
> part of this particular scam. Here goes:
It seems to me that the claim that ais523
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> But what is truth? Is truth a changing law?
> We both have truths-- are mine the same as yours?
And here I am with insufficient glitter on my sandals.
ais523 wrote:
> I call for judgement on the following statement: "It is possible to
> take a game action even in a message which includes the disclaimer
> in the evidence section."
But what is truth? Is truth a changing law?
We both have truths-- are mine the same as yours?
(Watch these message
On Thursday 22 May 2008 4:55:15 Alexander Smith wrote:
> Just because I didn't claim my claim of identity to be true, and
> explicitly refrained from saying that it was true or false, doesn't
> mean that it isn't a public document.
You fundamentally cannot publish a statement without claiming it t
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Just because something is not claimed to be true doesn't prevent it being
> a game action, or, as in this case, a claim of identity.)
It does if the game action itself is stating or denying whether something
is true!! -G.
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> be a claim of identity. I can write "'This message was written by Goethe'
> is a claim of identity" without lying, I'm pretty sure.
You can write that without lying. But then, if there was any legal
effect that required the message being actually w
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> As an additional example, the CotC publishes the text of CFJs, even if
> they are later judged FALSE. E certainly isn't claiming that the text of
> every CFJ ever published is true. However, they are still public
> documents, nevertheless. (They aren't
Goethe wrote:
> Yep. The whole thing is a public document. R2149 says you take the
> truth of the whole thing. If the whole thing isn't a claim, then it
> isn't a claim and isn't an action in this case. Either your DISCLAIMER
> disclaims your earlier sentence for all legal purposes, or no leg
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>> Actually, I think the DISCLAIMER works, due to R2149's "truth or
>> falsity of the whole" clause. Fortunately, this same disclaimer also
>> means that e did not publish eir claim of identity (and hence score).
>> ais523's attempt is
ais523 wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
> > Actually, I think the DISCLAIMER works, due to R2149's "truth or
> > falsity of the whole" clause. Fortunately, this same disclaimer also
> > means that e did not publish eir claim of identity (and hence score).
> > ais523's attempt is legal and ineffective.
> Jus
Pavitra wrote:
> Actually, I think the DISCLAIMER works, due to R2149's "truth or
> falsity of the whole" clause. Fortunately, this same disclaimer also
> means that e did not publish eir claim of identity (and hence score).
> ais523's attempt is legal and ineffective.
Just because I didn't claim m
On Thursday 22 May 2008 4:31:18 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Boy, what a bunch of lying going on. I hope y'all others can teach
> these folks that a purposeful lie is a purposeful lie, whether or
> not it also happens to be a game action (and DISCLAIMERS to the
> contrary notwithstanding).
Actually, I
Boy, what a bunch of lying going on. I hope y'all others can teach
these folks that a purposeful lie is a purposeful lie, whether or
not it also happens to be a game action (and DISCLAIMERS to the
contrary notwithstanding).
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> ihope wrote:
>> Claim of
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
> That doesn't seem undecidable; when two rules contradict, one takes
> precedence. The contradiction here is not of the usual sort, but the
> fact that you've shown a loop means that a contradiction does exist.
> Contradictions should be broken in favou
14 matches
Mail list logo
