Also, it seems to me that, since the difference is so thin, and the rules do not cover it, it would be valid to count spending as a loss.
avpx On Dec 24, 2007 11:40 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 24 December 2007 11:36:04 Nick Vanderweit wrote: > > I retract my previous (probably invalid) CFJ. > > > > I CFJ on the following statement: "It is possible to spend VCs that > > one does not own." > > > > avpx > > > > > On Dec 24, 2007 12:51 AM, Nick Vanderweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I CFJ on this. Spending anything, IMO, though not synonymous, is very > > > similar to losing it, and, though the difference seems to pop out > > > after thinking about it a bit, it's really not covered under the rules > > > at all. > > > > > > avpx > > > > > > > > > On Dec 24, 2007 12:05 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Nick Vanderweit wrote: > > > > >Because WALRUS does not have any VCs, the loss is waived, per rule > 2126. > > > > > > > > Loss != spending. I reckon you can't spend what you don't have. > > > > > > > > -zefram > > > > > > > > > > > Gratuitous arguments: > Common sense dictates that, when you spend something, you have also lost it. > The rules do not say otherwise, so common sense prevails. > This whole case is centered around whether or not "to spend" is sufficiently > similar to "to lose" to allow the VC loss to be waived. > I invite the judge (to be assigned) to take this into account. > >
