Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: cfj 666

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 5/9/02 at 8:29 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Naath Thabana,
>> 
>>> Statement: The game has never had an object numbered
>>> 655.
>>> 
>>> Analysis:
>>> 
>>> The Reality Police had the sushi.
>>> 
>>> The Reality Police's message implies that he sushified
>>> the text:
>>> 
>>> 
>> <CFJ><statement<ItcannotbedeterminedwhetherthisstatementappearswithinalegalC
>> FJ> .
>>> 
>> 
</statement><defendant>BaronvonSkippy</defendant><analysis>Ihavethesushi.IfI
r>> a
>>> nth
>>> 
>> 
isthroughbabelfishasonebigwordandaddedthewhitespaceafterwards,it'slegal.IfId
i>> d
>>> n'
>>> t,it'snot.I'mnottelling.</analysis></CFJ>uin.
>>> 
>>> then added whitespace and linebreaks.
>>> 
>>> However sushifying it via Korean produces the text:
>>> Inside a Korean
>>> 
>>> sushifying it via French and German produces the text:
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
ItcannotbedeterminedwhetherthisstatementappearswithinalegalCFJ.BaronvonSkipp
y>> I
>>> ha
>>> 
>> 
vethesushi.IfIranthisthroughbabelfishasonebigwordandaddedthewhitespaceafterw
a>> r
>>> ds
>>> , it' slegal. IfIdidn' T, it' snot.I' mnottelling.uin.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Neither of these two can be turned into the message
>>> sent by adding only whitespace and linebreaks,
>>> therefore he failed to operate sushification correctly
>>> and so the CFJ #655 never existed.
>>> 
>>> Judgement
>>> dunno
>>> 
>>> why?
>>> 
>>> because I said so!
>>> I accept that the object labeled CFJ 655 is/was not a
>>> CFJ, since it wasn't a legal post (on buisness forum
>>> by player with sushi... unsusified).
>>> 
>>> Also there is no rule 655.
>>> 
>>> However I do not know if there has ever been an object
>>> so numbered in the past.
>>> 
>>> If I'm stupid, and the system goes, give it the next
>>> number up and we can only use each number once then
>>> this CFI is TRUE.
>> 
>> 'dunno' hardly counts as a judgment. But you're right. There was an object
>> 655, because if uin's CFJ was illegal, then I believe the next thing that
>> gets recognized, be it proposal, rule, or CFJ, must be 655 instead.
>> 
>> --
>> Wonko
> 
> "Dunno" sounds like "undecided" to me...:)
> 
> Glotmorf
> 

You're probably right... Should we CFJ that it was judged undecided? ;)

-- 
Wonko