0x4461736864617368 on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:19:11 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Registration, consultation, proposal

If I were to claim this is consistent, would I subsequently lose the 
information about the judgment?


Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2007 11:36 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 2007 12:10 AM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The AFO submits a Consultation on the following statement:
>>>   If the Registrar attempts to refuse to allow an External Force to
>>>   become a player after it has already become a player, does it
>>>   thereby cease to be a player?
>>> Reasoning:
>>>   Rule 1-4 does not explicitly place any time limit on the Registrar's
>>>   refusal.  Rule 3-1 prohibits retroactive changes, but explicitly
>>>   allows their simulation.
>> This is Consultation Number 51, which I assign to Priest Wooble. (ouch)
> I answer Consultation Number 51 "NO".
> I hold that when the Registrar refuses to allow an External Force to
> become a Player, that External Force was never a Player in the game of
> B which follows this refusal.  The act of posting a message to the
> Public Forum requesting to become a Player creates a superposition of
> two games of B, one in which the External Force is a Player and one in
> which he is not.  The Registrar's act of refusing registration
> collapses the waveform, as does his addition of the External Force to
> the Public Display of Players.  This effect is therefore not
> retroactive, although it appears to be from the outside, as the game
> of B with the varying status of the Player (or non-Player) in question
> slips off into another Universe.  Keep the lasagna flying.
> --Priest Wooble
spoon-discuss mailing list