Re: [s-d] [s-b] 138 pondered

[Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Huffery fluffery, I wasn't obligated to send what I did. It's on the PD. 
You can have the MoQ if you want it though.


Warrigal wrote:
> 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
>   

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