Jake Eakle on Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:21:36 -0600 (CST)

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

[s-d] Re: [s-b] Wonko's loophole

first of all, indistinguish isn't a verb, nor any other part of speech.
Secondly, r699 said (note past tense) that an action must be
indistinguishable from a legal one by at least one person to be legal. While
your interpretation is clearly far far from the original intent, even with
such an interpretation the loopohole still works. An action need not have
previously been taken to be an action. Thus, Wonko could not distinguish his
actions from legal actions of the same description, even though they had
never previously been taken.


On 11/5/04 1:11 PM, "Dan Schmidt" <tiber264@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Wonko's loophole doesn't work reguardless of the
> CFI.To indistinguish two actions requires two actions;
> one to indistinguish and one to indistinguish
> from.Wonko's loophole only contained the former, thus
> he couldn't indistinguish his actions from legal ones
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business

spoon-discuss mailing list