Quoting Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 8/31/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
And I think Fern and Emerald are just Green.
They're definitely shades of green, but fern is slightly reddish
and emerald is slightly bluish. Much the same way that pink is a
shade of
Taral wrote:
Veracity: UNDECIDABLE
Angling for a paradox win?
The statement assumes that a violation can necessarily be assigned to
specific parts of a message, which is a false assumption. Rule 2149
itself states the truth or falsity of the whole is what is
significant.
This argument suggests
On 9/5/07, Peekee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ow I wanted to do that... Also there are some tetra-chrome humans who
can see 4 colours. There are actually an infinite number of real
colours (combinations of differing strengths of wavelengths) for any
colour we can perceive. So technically there
Taral wrote:
So we have two reasonable (IMO) interpretations of the statement that
result in opposite conclusions. Would this not be sufficient grounds
for a conclusion of UNDECIDABLE?
No. UNDECIDABLE is a substantive outcome on a par with TRUE and FALSE.
If you can't decide which substantive
Eris wrote:
CFJ: 1739
Statement: A part of a message sent to a Public Forum that is quoting
another message (even if the quote is intended to perform an
action) is never a violation of Rule 2149 to publish.
Veracity: UNDETERMINED
There are at least two reasonable
5 matches
Mail list logo
