Re: [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 115

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

JamesB wrote:

>> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:40:55 -0400
>> From: wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [s-b] [s-d]  Proposal: more cleanup
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:06 AM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I object, Wooble is not a Player.
>>
>> I CFI on: "Wooble is not a Player."
>>
>> I request that the judge consider whether Descartes views on mind/body
>> dualism are tenable.
> 
> 
> This is CFI 115. I assign CFI 115 to Judge Murphy.
> 
> Gratuitous arguments: Wooble never stopped being a player. Wooble was put on forced leave and has only been on leave for 2 nweeks so is still a player. I appreciate the complex "does a player's body count as a player?" question you're trying to ask here but the answer to the question as asked is false. 		 	   		  

I judge false.  Assuming that the following are all true (if not,
then please provide specific evidence):
  1) Wooble was put on Forced Leave in nweek 167
  2) This CFI was issued in nweek 169 (too early for Rule 53)
  3) Since #1, Wooble has not voluntarily forfeited
  4) Since #1, no Minister's report claiming that Wooble is not a
       player has ratified
then Wooble has remained a player since #1, and so the effectiveness
of eir statements "my (left hand / right hand / whole body) wishes to
become a player" is irrelevant.

For the record, I believe that "my Y does X" (where Y is one's body
or a subset containing one's brain) should be interpreted as equivalent
to "I do X", until/unless an incompatible stance on the mind/body
dualism issue is explicitly legislated.
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business