Craig Daniel on Thu, 6 Nov 2008 14:35:34 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] [s-d] Ministry of Questions actions

And to the public forum...

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In mistakenly judging Consultation 138, Charles makes a good point.
> Appropriating much of his wording from the reasoning because I see no
> obvious way to improve on it, I answer the Consultation as follows:
> Answer: NO.
> Reasoning: As non-Priest Charles said: "I know of no way to determine
> the actual answer, but I feel that an answer of PARADOX would not be
> appropriate, since both answers could potentially be logically
> correct. Thus, I am making the arbitrary decision to answer YES." I,
> however, am making the opposite arbitrary decision because I regard it
> as poor economic policy for B to arbitrarily delete mackerel that was
> placed in the corporation's hands in the first place out of a belief
> that it would not consequently be vanishing for no reason. Since the
> refresh proposal, in repealing comex's Corporation, would have
> destroyed the mackerel in question otherwise, I feel that if an
> Arbitrary answer must be chosen it ought to be NO.
>  - teucer
spoon-business mailing list