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

[Eric Gerlach <egerlach@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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