Jake Eakle on Sat, 6 Nov 2004 12:55:29 -0600 (CST)

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

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

The action he could not distinguish his actions from were themselves. He
said "doing what i did is a legal action" and "I cannot distinguish what I
did from what I did". This works fine under what was the current wording of
r699. However, he could also have said "I cannot distinguish what I did from
throwing tomatoes" and that would have worked too. He's the only one who has
to be unable to distinguish the two actions, and while in thie case it would
ahve been more blatantly obvious that he was lying or very confused, there
is still no way we could prove it (and no rule against being confused).

On 11/6/04 10:41 AM, "Jeremy Cook" <athena@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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!"
> Zarpint
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

spoon-discuss mailing list