On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> Trivially FALSE. comex has a rest, which is a Losing Condition.
> E burned it off, I thought?
E had two; I think e has only burned one off so far.
>> But I don't think you would get a paradox out of this anyway; it would
>> simply not be a
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 11:42 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 11:17 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> >> Per CFJ 2450, I award 96+96i points to comex.
> >
> > Disclaimer: This message is an attempt to construct a paradox. Nothing
> > he
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 11:17 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Per CFJ 2450, I award 96+96i points to comex.
>
> Disclaimer: This message is an attempt to construct a paradox. Nothing
> here is definitely false; but it may be confusing.
>
> The followi
2009/4/28 Alex Smith :
> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 11:17 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Per CFJ 2450, I award 96+96i points to comex.
>
> Disclaimer: This message is an attempt to construct a paradox. Nothing
> here is definitely false; but it may be confusing.
>
> The following sentence is a Win Announcem
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> FWIW, the reason I used "a player" instead of "a contestmaster" in the
> proposal was that I didn't like referring to a contestmaster without
> reference to a particular contest (and "the contestmaster of a
> contest" just seemed excessively wor
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:17 AM, comex wrote:
> Fair enough. You wrote the text in question, but the fact that I
> genuinely misinterpreted the intended meaning (I thought it was
> intended to pragmatize the question of whether someone was actually a
> contestmaster) demonstrates there is at lea
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> It refers to the subset of announcements in which the announcer claims
>> that e performed duties related to a contest in a timely manner during
>> a month.
>
> Respectfully disagree.
Fair enough. You wrote the text in question, but the fact
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:46 AM, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> No, e's arguing that by "such an announcement", the rule means that.
>> It actually seems rather intuitive that "such an announcement" would
>> refer to a subset of announcements
>
> It refers t
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> No, wait, I didn't read what comex said right there. I'm arguing the
>> same as Murphy, and comex's objection applies to that too. However, I
>> think that "such an announcement" can als
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> No, e's arguing that by "such an announcement", the rule means that.
> It actually seems rather intuitive that "such an announcement" would
> refer to a subset of announcements
It refers to the subset of announcements in which the announcer cla
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:36 AM, comex wrote:
> Murphy seems to be arguing that by "announcement" the rule really
> means "the action described in the previous paragraph, which is a
> special case of an announcement", but this goes against the wording of
> the rule.
No, e's arguing that by "such
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> No, wait, I didn't read what comex said right there. I'm arguing the
> same as Murphy, and comex's objection applies to that too. However, I
> think that "such an announcement" can also be seen as "the kind of
> announcement we spent the e
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Gratuitous:
> It seems there are two interpretations:
> One is that "such an announcement" means only the announcement stating
> that duties have been performed, and in that case everything else
> about it is conditions that weren't met, s
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Gratuituous:
>
> Part of the referent of "such an announcement" in this case is the
> identity of the announcer, so FALSE.
>
> Even if the contestmaster of Enigma had done this, another part of the
> referent of "such an announcement" in this ca
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> I don't know about the terms here, maybe some are defined, but if the
> contestmaster can perform an action, I'd say being the contestmaster
> is a condition that has to be met in order to perform the action. And
> if it's a part of the act
2009/4/17 comex :
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> If you have been the contestmaster for at least 16 days, you MAY once,
>> otherwise you MAY not, so all the statements are illegal. I'm not
>> really sure about what the rest of 2234 does to this, if the
>> statements
16 matches
Mail list logo
