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

["Charles Schaefer" <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx>]

2008/11/6, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> 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


By my answer of YES I was trying to teach comex a lesson about submitting
frivolous game actions. However, I respect your right as Priest to make that
arbitrary choice, and think it would be pointless to keep this going, thus I
find your answer CONSISTENT.
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business