Re: [eia] Re: "physically possible"

[Michael Gorman <mpgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 05:10 PM 4/28/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>     I agree that a chain of events resulting in a Spanish invasion is
> "conceptually possible" (in my fictional examples).  I don't agree that that
> chain of events is "physically possible" unless there is an *existing* corps
> (not merely a potential one) that could do the invading.
>
>     If I knock over the empty glass sitting next to me as I type this, is it
> "physically possible" that I will spill water on the ground in doing so.
> Sure, *if* I put some water in it first!  But if I don't, then it isn't
> physically possible for my knocked-over glass to spill any water.  (There's
> no water in it to be spilled!)
>     The point is that there is a perfectly legitimate sense of "physically
> possible" that depends on what conditions exist at the time of utterance.  I
> think that it is this sense of "physically possible" that is being invoked
> in 4.2.2.3, primarily because the alternative is absurd (in game terms).
>
>     Oh well.  I've made my case.  If it's not persuasive, then so be it.
> (At the end of the day, it's really not that important.)
>
> kdh
But if the corps counter has been purchased and the reinforcements have 
been purchased, then they aren't conceptual.  They exist.    There is no 
conceptual water about it.  Either you purchased the factors and the 
counters or you didn't.  The area I don't get is how purchased 
reinforcements don't exist.  You've spent the money, they're scheduled to 
arrive, they're as real as any other factor.






_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia