Eric Gerlach on 4 Mar 2002 04:58:05 -0000


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

Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ


At 11:38 PM 2002-03-03 -0500, you wrote:
On 3/3/02 at 11:12 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:

If I may...

Of course.

On the contrary, the game state has in fact been altered since that time. The Administrator made statements both before and after the one I objected to, and, since, as far as I know, those weren't objected to, they therefore, by the current version of r129, resulted in alteration of the game state to reflect those statements.

You've missed the point of my "brief" completely. Your objection does not make the statement "go away". It merely means that we have to use some means to figure out if it is true or not. I'd argue that we have implicitly had concesus on whether that statement is true or false. And that concensus is that it is true.

Even if the Administrator's statement is false, your CFJ is false because you said that it was because of rule 129, which is false. So the entire CFJ must be false.

Bean