Re: [s-b] harvest time

[Phil Ulrich <phil@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'll quote Wonko here, from the first tomato fiasco.

"2) The Tomato Fiasco

I cite CFJ 688, available at <http://www.bnomic.org/history.php?rn=688> 
. (look at the bottom one, that's the most recent). This CFI (then 
called a CFJ) was made in reference to the sentence

"A player may drink a glass of champagne by announcing that e is doing 
so in a public forum, this causes it to be destroyed."

The claim was that this sentence allowed players to drink Champagne at 
any time, regardless of whether they had champagne or even whether any 
champagne existed.

The ruling (see the appellate ruling, as the original judgment was 
overruled) was that since "a glass of champagne" was a defined game 
object, "to drink a glass of champagne" was not a standalone action but 
instead an action performed upon a game object.

By this precedent, "to throw a tomato" requires the existence of a 
tomato, as tomatoes are defined under the rules. So nobody has thrown 
any tomatoes."

Note that tomatoes now exist. All that throwing a tomato means is that 
I throw a tomato; nowhere in r1902 does it say I have to possess the 
tomato. In fact, you can possess it, for all I (or r1902) care.

I declare my intent to take my free throw against Personman, as well as 
throw the other two tomatoes at him forty-two times each.

--Phil
=======================================
"Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me 
because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a 
quarrel with mine, though I have not quarreled with him?" - Blaise 
Pascal


On Oct 25, 2004, at 11:58 PM, Jake Eakle wrote:

> First, because they have existed for two nweeks, all existing vines 
> produce
> tomatoes.
>
> Secondly, I pick the tomatoes on the vines owned by myself, Phil, and 
> Wonko,
> as well as the one on the Vine In The Town Square.
>
> Now, there are a couple possibilities here. Either the rules is 
> interpreted
> as it was meant, and I now own four tomaatoes and phil and wonko both 
> have
> Free Throws against me which they cannot use, or it is interpreted
> literally, and my having 'picked' these tomatoes is not defined, much 
> as
> 'lay down' wasn't, to have have anything in common with the ordinary 
> english
> phrase. In this case, i don't even own my the tomato on my own vine, 
> since i
> have no means of getting it. After all, the rule merely says that vines
> "produce" tomatoes, and says nothing regarding ownership or location. 
> Thus
> it follows that now I have picked four tomatoes, and own none, and 
> Phil and
> Wonko do have Free Throws against me, but still cannot use them, as 
> they
> don't have (and can't have) any tomatoes either.
>
> My case for the former scenario being the one that actually happens is 
> that
> while 'lay down' in ordinary english really doesn't mean 'play' or 
> 'put back
> in the deck', 'pick' really does mean 'remove from the vine and gain
> posession of'. If I were supreme dictator of this Nomic, I would say 
> that's
> what happens. However, that's also the way it works out best for me, 
> so I
> leave it up to you all.
>
> Also, just cause I haven't been given one yet, I draw a card. And I 
> pay 5~
> for my vine.
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business

_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business