| Warrigal on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:22:18 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] 138 pondered |
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Consultation 138, "Does comex's Corporation (his first one), at the time > of this Consultation's submission, possess m50?" has become Pondered as No. No, you're supposed to do it like this: Detail: http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Consultations/00138 ========================== Consultation 138 ========================== Does comex's Corporation (his first one), at the time of this Consultation's submission, possess m50? ======================================================================== Supplicant: Billy Pilgrim Priest: Goethe Answer: NO ======================================================================== History: Submitted by Billy Pilgrim: 20 Oct 2008 16:54:59 UTC Teucer selected as Priest: 06 Nov 2008 01:20:32 UTC Answered NO by Teucer: 06 Nov 2008 21:35:27 UTC Pondered as NO: 09 Nov 2008 00:00:00 UTC ======================================================================== Gratuitous Evidence by Billy Pilgrim: http://lists.ellipsis.cx/archives/spoon-business/spoon-business-200810/msg00372.html See the above scheduled Game Actions by comex and by comex's Corporation. These Game Actions ceased to be take when the current Emergency began. If an even millisecond occurred more recently that an odd millisecond immediately before the Emergency began, then comex's Corporation should possess m50. If this is not True, then comex's Corporation should not possess m50. ======================================================================== Priest Teucer's Arguments: Reasoning: As non-Priest Charles said: "I know of no way to determine the actual answer, but I feel that an answer of PARADOX would not be appropriate, since both answers could potentially be logically correct. Thus, I am making the arbitrary decision to answer YES." I, however, am making the opposite arbitrary decision because I regard it as poor economic policy for B to arbitrarily delete mackerel that was placed in the corporation's hands in the first place out of a belief that it would not consequently be vanishing for no reason. Since the refresh proposal, in repealing comex's Corporation, would have destroyed the mackerel in question otherwise, I feel that if an Arbitrary answer must be chosen it ought to be NO. ======================================================================== --Warrigal _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss