Jeremy Cook on Sat, 6 Nov 2004 12:41:33 -0600 (CST)

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

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

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 10:15:18AM -0800, Dan Schmidt wrote:
> First loopohole is no a noun nor is it any part of
> speach. That's not what I ment at all.If Wonko had
> said "I cannot disinguish my actions from throwing
> tomatos" then his loophole would have worked even if
> there are no tomatos.The action he indistinguishes
> from could be anything as long as it is a legal
> action.Just saying that an action is indistingushable
> from a legal action doesn't work; you need to define
> it.
> I'll Call For Justice is I need to.

I see what you're saying, and you've got the right idea: Wonko has to
point to a specific legal action that he can't distinguish from his
actions. It's not enough that he thinks the actions were legal.

To be "indistinguishable from a legal action", there must exist some
legal action X such that Wonko cannot tell his actions from X.

If Wonko had said "I cannot distinguish my actions from throwing
tomatoes", I would have no reason to believe him, and a good reason not
to, so it still wouldn't have worked.

This issue is currently under appeal, and Personman and TPR are the
Appellate Judges.

> Roduni, Yendoru no Taikyoku Sho Jushi,Who likes to
> point out that if indistinguishable is a word then
> indisingush is a word    

It's not. I don't even know what 'to indistinguish' means, although
it's a cool idea. "I indistinguish you from a pile of rubble!"

spoon-discuss mailing list