On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Goethe wrote: >> >>> In this case, all demotions failed, as BobTHJ would have had to demote >>> a Beta first. (I think once you do skip a step, everything after that is >>> platonically blocked because the CAN implied with the SHALL is pegged >>> to doing things in order, if you do it out of order, you no longer CAN). >>> Agreements/disagreements with this interpretation? >> >> Agreed, but e CAN pick up where e left off. (But does SHALL >> successfully imply CAN? The rule never says "by announcement".) > > Ooh, I forgot that the SHALL -> CAN judgement depends on it being > SHALL "by announcement". So none of it is possible? (I agree with you > on otherwise e could pick up where e left off). > > Can the fix to this be pragmatized, e.g. e CAN do it all the time or > any time and it works, but if e doesn't follow the SHALL guidelines > e breaks the Rule AND has to re-do things to fix it. > So, can anyone explain to me what is going on and what I need to do using two syllable words or less?
BobTHJ
