Re: [s-b] [s-d] Ministry of Questions actions

[Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I find this answer Consistent.


Craig Daniel wrote:
> And to the public forum...
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
>> In mistakenly judging Consultation 138, Charles makes a good point.
>> Appropriating much of his wording from the reasoning because I see no
>> obvious way to improve on it, I answer the Consultation as follows:
>>
>> Answer: NO.
>> Reasoning: As non-Priest Charles said: "I know of no way to determine
>> the actual answer, but I feel that an answer of PARADOX would not be
>> appropriate, since both answers could potentially be logically
>> correct. Thus, I am making the arbitrary decision to answer YES." I,
>> however, am making the opposite arbitrary decision because I regard it
>> as poor economic policy for B to arbitrarily delete mackerel that was
>> placed in the corporation's hands in the first place out of a belief
>> that it would not consequently be vanishing for no reason. Since the
>> refresh proposal, in repealing comex's Corporation, would have
>> destroyed the mackerel in question otherwise, I feel that if an
>> Arbitrary answer must be chosen it ought to be NO.
>>
>>  - teucer
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> 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