| Craig Daniel on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:29:29 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 170 |
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Elliott Hird <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 18 Dec 2008, at 17:30, James Baxter wrote: > >> I answer YES to this consultation as the answers to consultations must be >> in keeping with previous consultations or they will be declared incosistent >> and become invalid, thus making all consultations that do not follow >> previous precedent untrue. > > INCONSISTENT; misses the point. I'm actually going to have to agree, looking at the Arguments. It's the Answer I wanted and believe, but I don't agree with the priest's reasons for sharing my view. By the way, Wooble recently pointed me to this: http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Consultations/00129 The Oracularity has been undone since, but that doesn't change the fact that it was understood to be true at the time (this was one of the properly-used Oracularities that removes the ambiguity rather than fixing the brokenness the Priest has just acknowledged as being present) and nothing has changed to remove this fact. Ergo, there were precedents three months ago, and this has not changed since then. ...of course this is a circular argument. If you think our judicial system is just worthless verbal flatus, then you're free to ignore what was true in September. - teucer _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss