Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] The Daily Recognizer (Wednesday night)

["Orc In A Spacesuit" <orcinaspacesuit@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I rule TRUE on CFI 1481.
>
> Analysis:
>
> The current situation is messed up beyond reasonable understanding.

No, it is not.  Perhaps you should REFUSE if you are unable to fully analyze 
the situation.

> Volumes of email containing accusations, vitriol, denial, mutually 
> contradicting logic and self-interest have contributed to that.

You seem to combining several independent situations.  All that is relevant 
is the current state of the rules, and actions attempted with those rules in 
the past few nedays.  Proposals in the past, actions in the past, and 
discussion of other topics are irrelevant.

> Given this, it is unreasonable to expect any single rationale, especially 
> one that gives its proponent a win, to be taken more seriously than any 
> other.

I took all the rationales very seriously.  And until you pointed out the 
problem with Wonko's win, I thought he had a win in the bag, and was ready 
to congratulate him.

> A critical-path analysis of the appropriate logic would be useful.

Forgive me if I misunderstand, but I was under the impression that 
critical-path analysis was a process for planning projects or tasks.

What I think would be useful would be an analysis of all the paths of logic, 
of all the reasons for things involoved; this may be what you mean by 
critical-path analysis in this context.  I did that in my original "Who 
Wins?" email, and I have proved all responses to it to either be A. Wrong or 
B. Irrelevant given the other things involved.

> Barring that, any claim of victory by any individual is equally valid; 
> therefore, any claim of victory by any individual should be considered 
> equally invalid.

Besides the fact that critical-path analysis is not the only way to 
determine validity, and statements earlier in this post make the previous 
sentence irrelevant:

Either validity and invalidity are absolutes, and everything is one or the 
other, and not in between; or validity is a scale, and things can be placed 
anywhere on that scale.

If they are absolutes, then saying something is is both valid and invalid is 
nonsensical; therefore, in the context you are using, validity is a scale.

If validity is a scale, and everything can have any place on this scale, and 
the place on this scale of a thing is unknown, then it is possible that that 
thing may be fully valid.

Therefore, the logic proving I won may be fully valid.

I have proved that the logic saying that others have won is invalid.  No one 
has proved that the logic saying I won is invalid.  Therefore, the logic 
proving that I have won may possibly still be fully valid.

Another tangent:  If things are unknown, that does not make them equal.  
Pluto is not equal to Uranus; yet both were unknown at some point.  If all 
you knew that there are 'two planets out there somewhere', these two planets 
do share the same possibility for what they are, but that does not mean they 
share the same values (mass, size, rotation, etc in the planets example) 
within those possibilities.

Orc in a Spacesuit

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss