Wonko on 12 Feb 2002 23:59:31 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

 spoon-discuss: Proosals.

• To: Discussion Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: spoon-discuss: Proosals.
• From: Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:59:24 -0500
• Blobman: 1
• User-agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022

```[[ The Rule ]]
For the purposes of the rules, and for all other purposes within the game,
the term "proposal" shall be considered precisely equivalent to the far
superior term "proosal".
[[ ]]

This means that whenever you see the word 'proposal', it should be treated
as if it were 'proosal'. An analogy would be when, while doing algebra, you
state that x is equivalent to 3. If x was already defined to be 5, then you
haven't just defined 3 to be equivalent to 5. You've redefined the value of
x. So by stating that 'proposal' is equivalent to 'proosal', that means that
the value of 'proposal' is now 'proosal'. You have not, in any way, changed
the definition of proosal, any more than you would have changed the
definition of 3 in algebra.

Or, if the rule were interpreted to mean proposal==proosal, then the rule is
a paradox, because it isn't true. The triple equal thingy is a comparison
operator, not an assignment operator, to use programming terminology.

Anyhow, this isn't just an attempt to cause your 'scam' to fail ­ I agree
with your 'scam', and if you fix the CFJ to use the right word, I'd judge it
TRUE. Your 'scam' just drew attention to this problem, which has always been
a problem.

--
Wonko
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day; set him on fire and he'll be
warm for the rest of his life.

```