Antonio Dolcetta on Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:06:46 -0700 (MST)


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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Rule Categorization


On 7 Feb 2008, at 17:48, Geoffrey Spear wrote:

> On Feb 7, 2008 11:43 AM, Antonio Dolcetta  
> <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7 Feb 2008, at 17:39, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2008 11:33 AM, ihope <ihope127@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 07/02/2008, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> This is Consultation #105. I assign it to Priest Ivan Hope.
>>>>>
>>>>> NOTE: This consultation can only be found to be YES. If it is
>>>>> found to
>>>>> be NO, then it would not be a consultation, since both the message
>>>>> that called it and this message include the text of the quasi-
>>>>> proposal
>>>>> "Enough Already!".
>>>>>
>>>>> Oracle BobTHJ
>>>>
>>>> I answer this consultation NO, with the Oracularity of "All  
>>>> proposals
>>>> with the title of Enough Already! as well as all Consultations
>>>> numbered 105 are destroyed." If this Consultation didn't exist,
>>>> wonderful; if it did exist, now it doesn't.
>>>
>>> I claim this answer is INCONSISTENT with doctrine.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> why ?
>
> Because it destroys a Proposal and a Consultation, which is a blatant
> abuse of the Oracularity system.
>
>

In this case it's perfectly well meant and not an abuse. The  
destroyed Proposal and Consultation do not in fact exist (by the  
priest's reasoning which cannot be explicit in this case). Maybe It  
would have been best if he had been explicit :-D
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss