Re: [s-d] [s-b] Must a contract be meaningful to be valid?

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jay Campbell wrote:

> There is no claim this document forms a corporation, so there are fewer 
> challenges than last time.
> 
> But, teucer, you are bound by this contract until such time as you prove 
> it contains a provision to allow you to cease to be bound by it. Nor may 
> you edit the contract. It is not a corporation, so you are not able to 
> act on behalf of it.
> 
> My guess is this is some pre-20th century cipher that when unwound with 
> the appropriate key (or maybe just an algorithm) says "teucer may leave 
> this contract".
> 
> 
> Craig Daniel wrote:
>> As a follow-up to explorations with Epimenides, I submit the following
>> contract, entitled "lhret rhlhr":
>>
>> {lhret rhlhr wjehl lryaj klher awjhye lewlj kralk jsaer yhkjl rebgl
>> aeryl ghkao iusdo ixzjd ewlho izgei ogqoi ugewo iagok dsabj vbiua
>> euiog uaoig jeaug utoai gxugi bxjah gegoy uioqi wqpre}

The obvious rearrangement reveals no obvious obfuscated meaning:

lrwlkalkjyragiieiouidveujugbguw
hhjrlwersheehuxwzggasbuaetxxeiq
rleyhjwaakbrkszlgqegaiioaoujgop
ehhaehllejgyadjheowobuoiuagaoqr
trljryjkrllloodoiiokjagggiihyie

nor does rot13 help matters any:

yuerg euyue jwruy yelnw xyure njwulr yrjyw xenyx wfnre luxwy eroty
nrely tuxnb vhfqb vkmwq rjyub vmtrv btdbv htrjb vntbx qfnow iovhn
rhvbt hnbvt wrnht hgbnv tkhtv okwnu trtbl hvbdv jdcer

yejyxnyxwlentvvrvbhvqirhwhtothj
uuweyjrefurruhkjmttnfohnrgkkrvd
eyrluwjnnxoexfmytdrtnvvbnbhwtbc
ruunruyyrwtlnqwurbjbohbvhntnbde
geywelwxeyyybbqbvvbxwntttvvulvr

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