RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: [[Avoiding Entropy]]

["Gavin Doig" <gmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >"The map is not the territory". The quote is not the comment.
>
> These two statements do not have an analogous relationship.
> Except in the instance where both of them are wrong.
>
Well, this wasn't my argument, it was just a sort of aside at the end, but still...

> A map can in fact be a territory, if the territory is fictitious,
> an element of a novel.  In that instance, the territory does
> not exist except as defined by the story elements, one of
> which is an illustrative map.  Thus, the map is the territory,
> because the map defines the territory.
>
The map still isn't the territory. It's just a map of some "unreal" territory, which exists only in the novel (or the mind of the author, or whatever). You *might* have more of a point if you were talking about wargaming, but that would come down to how you're defining "map", and in any case it still wouldn't really be relevant. ;-)

> A quote of a comment is in fact the comment, repeated.
>
Yes. That's not under dispute. The problem is that the quote of the comment is not itself a comment.

Consider an analogy:
I say "Glotmorf eats babies". This constitutes slander (or libel, or whatever).
The Daily Planet reports that 'uin said today "Glotmorf eats babies".' This is in fact the slander, repeated. It is not itself slander. A quote of slander is not slander (because the law defines what slander is), just as a quote of a comment is not a comment (because the rules define what a comment is).

R8 is quite clear about what constitutes a comment. A comment is text in [[]]s. Wonko's proosals were not in [[]]s, and therefore were not comments.

A quote does not inherit anything from its source, except the actual text which is quoted. You're claiming otherwise, but I see nothing to support your position.

If I might further venture a pragmatic reason as to why, even if you weren't wrong, we'd want you to be:
If I were to post the phrase "[[create a rule]]" to the mailing list, and Wonko were to then use that phrase in a proosal, under your interpretation the effect of Wonko's proosal would depend on whether he was quoting me or not. If Wonko were to refuse to reveal that information, we would be unable to decide the gamestate. Worse, if I were to create a proosal which said "uin loses 300 points. Any points which are awarded to uin are destroyed.", after it passed I could then claim that the only words which were not quotes were "300 points are awarded to uin." Doubtless you'll claim that something's only a quote if you explicitly say that it is at the time. That's not supported by the rules.

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup