On Monday 7 July 2008 3:55:18 Zefram wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: > >========================= Criminal Case 2048 ========================= > > ehird violated Rule 2149 by saying that e joins. > ... > >Judge Taral's Arguments: > > > >As much as I appreciate Goethe's sentiment about the deception, the > >registration attempt is an action, and precedent holds that it is > >therefore merely ineffective. UNIMPUNGED. > > With 2 support I intend to appeal Taral's verdict in CFJ 2048. > The judge has not referred to the alleged precedent that would make > a failing speech act merely ineffective rather than untruthful, and I > think e is mistaken in saying that there is one. On a simple analysis, > ehird made the statement "I join.", but e did not join (at that time), > so eir statement that e was joining was a false one. It does not lose > its statementhood or falsity merely by virtue of the fact that the rules > make similar statements in some circumstances trigger game state changes > that make those statements true.
I support. An action by announcement generally requires a statement that one performs the action, and if the action is IMPOSSIBLE, then the statement that one performs it is false. Pavitra
