Bryan Donlan on Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:44:59 -0600 (CST)

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

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

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:02:09 -0800 (PST), Dan Schmidt <tiber264@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> His actions weren't legal thus he couldn't
> indistinguish them from his actions.If he could then I
> could create a rule saying "Rodney may create this
> rule.All rules defer to this rule".

Again, indistinguish isn't a word, and if it was you'd be using a
double negative. As fas as I can tell, you're saying:
"His actions weren't legal thus he could distinguish them from his actions."
However, this makes no sense. You cannot distinguish two equal things.
Additionally, this is starting from the assumption that the actions
are illegal - if this is valid, than starting with the assumption that
the actions are legal is also valid, in which case it is
indistinguishable from a legal action.

> Roduni, Yendoru no Taikyoku Sho Jushi,Who points out
> that even though "Structopolimania",
> "Mobiokilopachydermist" and "Velcromancer" are not
> words, they're still cool

I'll concede on that point, however.
spoon-discuss mailing list