On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 20:39, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3033 > > ============================== CFJ 3033 ============================== > > Pavitra is a player. > > ======================================================================== > > Caller: Murphy > Barred: Pavitra > > Judge: Yally > Judgement: > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Called by Murphy: 15 Jun 2011 20:39:08 GMT > Assigned to Yally: (as of this message) > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Evidence: > > Pavitra wrote: > > > The body of my shortly forthcoming public message has no effect. > > Pavitra wrote: > > > I register. > > The second was a reply to the first, sent about 90 seconds later. > > ======================================================================== > > Gratuitous Arguments by Pavitra: > > CFJs 1451-1452 establish that messages generally can be split into > multiple emails. > > CFJ 2133 establishes that disclaimers generally can prevent actions by > announcement. > > ======================================================================== > > Gratuitous Evidence by Pavitra: > > CFJs 1451-1452 and 2133. > > ======================================================================== > > Gratuitous Arguments by Bucky: > > It appears that the first message is simply a true statement observing that > the second message has not yet taken effect. As such, it should not > invalidate the second message which was received later. > > ======================================================================== > > Gratuitous Arguments by G.: > > CFJ 1451 includes the following qualifier: "I note that > both of these were exceedingly simple cases of non-standard messages. > Messages that are more complex or less clear will require testing by > CFJ and may be found to lack one or more components of Hofstadter's > identity of messages." > > I think the timing of truth values and disclaimers is in fact "more > complex and less clear." For example, if disclaimers work immediately > forward, it would imply they could work immediately backwards, with > connotations that a "message" never leaves a technical domain of > control because we'd never be able to tell if it were "finished". > > ======================================================================== > > Gratuitous Arguments by Tanner L. Swett: > > yes, but in those cases, the messages were reasonably > clearly marked as forming a single message. In this case, the messages > are reasonably clearly marked as forming *separate* messages, since > the first message refers to the second message as a message, rather > than another part of the same message. > > ======================================================================== > In interpreting a message, all relevant peripheral evidence must be taken into account. While I acknowledge G.'s arguments concerning a message unable to be finished if qualifiers are able to apply in reverse, I see no reason why permitting qualifiers which affect future messages implies the possibility of qualifiers which affect past messages. Indeed, it is clear, from context, that Pavitra's message consisting of "I register" was not intended to register em in the game. Accepting the precedent and arguments cited by Pavitra, I judge this case FALSE.
