Re: [s-b] Consultation 135

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I answer NO to Consultation 135.

Given that the reasoning behind this answer discusses the text itself
rather than the form it is presented in, I believe the assertion in
the transaction below to be true despite the fact that it was
difficult to get at the entirely-legible text of the Contract of
Epimenides before the password was revealed on spoon-discuss. (Lhret
rhlhr, on the other hand, was defined not as the content of that
message but as the string itself - so under this judgement it could
not be considered to compel me to do anything other than to lhret
rhlhr wjehl lryaj klher etc.)

BEGIN TRANSACTION
Assertion: The Contract of Epimenides is a valid contract.
Action: I undertake the action described by the plaintext of the
enciphered game action contained within the transaction I have posted
which contains an assertion about Consultation 135 being judged TRUE.
END TRANSACTION
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business