Re: [spoon-discuss] "effects related to proposal failure"

[SkArcher <SkArcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

20/07/2003 18:28:45, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>On Sunday, July 20, 2003, at 12:25  PM, SkArcher wrote:
>
>> Since when am I in the minority. The majority of the players seem to 
>> be in on the failure scam.
>
>AFAICT, you're the only one who firmly believes that this is true; a 
>few people are unsure (or don't have time to read the relevant rules 
>and are waiting for others to figure it out for them), and a bunch of 
>people, myself included, are doing random things just in case the CFI's 
>go the wrong way, so that we'll profit from it if for some strange 
>reason it goes through, but we don't really expect it to go through.
>
>Your scam depends on the assumption that if you define an object (in 
>this case, an effect) within the text of a proposal, then that object 
>exists regardless of the passage or failue of that proposal. I see no 
>reason to assume that this is the case; and in fact many reasons to 
>assume that it is not.
>

It should probably be pointed out that I was the first to raise the query - its just that I am sure as hell not going to pass up the oportunity, and at the end 
of the day I loose nothing by it

And I am the one with the proposal which is designed to patch the hole, should one exist


SkArcher 


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