there are several ways e could cease to be a person.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2009, at 6:54 AM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 11:26 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
[coppro is hovering, but the only criminal cases requiring a judge
are 2721-23 which e initiated.]
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2718
=================== CFJ 2718 (Interest Index = 0)
====================
At no point in time between the moment this CFJ is assigned to a
judge, and the next moment at which either rule 2215 is
repealed, amended, or otherwise fails to be enforceable with its
current meaning, will it be legal for the judge of this CFJ to
publically make an undisclaimed statement with the same meaning
as this one (i.e. replacing 'the judge of this CFJ' with the
actual judge, etc.).
===
===
==================================================================
Caller: ais523
Barred: ə
Judge: coppro
Judgement:
===
===
==================================================================
I set the II of this case to 1.
I judge UNDETERMINED on the basis that there might be other
sequences of
events affecting things, such as the judge being an entity that
ceases
to be a person after being assigned.
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement, for two reasons.
First, the arguments do not show that the judgement actually depends
on
the condition stated (e.g. if the statement is TRUE both ways round,
then UNDETERMINED is inappropriate). Secondly, coppro (the actual
judge;
this is not a hypothetical CFJ) is of a biological nature; biological
non-persons cannot send email (by definition) thus could not send the
message in question, so the legality only comes up in the one
situation
that is considered by the CFJ. coppro, please address my first point
that the actual judgement doesn't depend on the condition you
stated; I
don't believe it's mathematically possible for you to contradict me on
this without breaking Truthiness.
--
ais523
