2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> R1728 allows that. We voted that in after comex deliberately
> prevented an appeal by announcing eir intent to do it and then never
> actually doing it, remember?
I remember that in #ircnomic. :)
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> R1728 allows that. We voted that in after comex deliberately
> prevented an appeal by announcing eir intent to do it and then never
> actually doing it, remember?
Nope! Now I know tho. :)
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I support this. The precedent from CFJ 1738 is that speech acts do
>> carry truth values. Additionally, I know of no precedent stating what
>> Taral claims.
>>
>> The action having r
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I support this. The precedent from CFJ 1738 is that speech acts do
> carry truth values. Additionally, I know of no precedent stating what
> Taral claims.
>
> The action having received two support, I hereby appeal CFJ 2048.
Um, did you just attempt to
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought that side of the case was uncontroversial.
I think a determination as to the existence of truth values for
actions is more appropriately achieved by an inquiry case, not an
appeal of a criminal case.
--
Taral <[EMAIL P
Taral wrote:
>required to show that the accused did not believe eir statement to be
>true.
I thought that side of the case was uncontroversial.
-zefram
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With 2 support I intend to appeal Taral's verdict in CFJ 2048.
> The judge has not referred to the alleged precedent that would make
> a failing speech act merely ineffective rather than untruthful, and I
> think e is mistaken in s
7 matches
Mail list logo
