On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:40 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I discussed this in an earlier post. A total disclaimer ("Any statements
> made in this message might be false.") certainly should disqualify a
> statement from operating as an action, because it means that the action
> hasn't ac
Elliott Hird wrote:
>Now, the announcement that performs an action is obviously a statement. But it
>does not seem to imply that anything is true or false - at a stretch, we can
>say that it states that the action it purports to perform is successful.
That's precisely what it does state! It is a
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'm puzzled by the disclaimers issue.
>If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action statements
>can be false) wouldn't the disclaimer always cause it to fail? You can't
>have it both ways!
I discussed this in an earlier p
Goethe wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I think the intended interpretation is that "I do X (disclaimer: maybe
>> not)" is ineffective, while "I do X (disclaimer: not if Y)" is effective
>> provided that Y is false at the time (IOW, it's equivalent to "if not Y
>> then I do X").
>
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I think that (a) you're discussing intent to mislead in general, and
> (b) Zefram and I objected to what used to be called recklessness wrt
> the truth (i.e. publishing a statement without bothering to consider
> whether it was true or not). Would you be ha
Goethe wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Perhaps our criterion of illegality should be whether the message
>> included intent to deceive, not absolute positive belief in the
>> statement's truth.
>
> I liked a version that included intent to deceive, Zefram didn't care
> for it so
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I think the intended interpretation is that "I do X (disclaimer: maybe
> not)" is ineffective, while "I do X (disclaimer: not if Y)" is effective
> provided that Y is false at the time (IOW, it's equivalent to "if not Y
> then I do X").
Trivial to turn "may
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action statements
>> can be false) wouldn't the disclaimer always cause it to fail? You can't
>> have it both ways!
> CFJ 1971. Maybe that'll have t
Goethe wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
Intentionally failing to perform an action is a form of dishonesty,
and it should be every bit as illegal as
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with that. A disclaimed assertion is no longer an assertion.
> I argued as much when comex made eir OVERLOOKED allegation, but nobody
> seemed to agree with me at the time.
Although apparently I supported the panel's
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action statements
> can be false) wouldn't the disclaimer always cause it to fail? You can't
> have it both ways!
CFJ 1971. Maybe that'll have to be revisited in the light of this
discuss
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> YOU MISS THE POINT. WHY IS IT JUST OR VALUABLE TO AGORA TO FORCE US TO
> ANSWER TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS SORT OF THING IN THE FIRST PLACE
> THIS PLACE HAS BEEN CRIMINALIZED ENOUGH, AND NOW YOU'RE ASKING US TO BE
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I liked a version that included intent to deceive, Zefram didn't care
> for it so it disappeared from Murphy's draft. Intent to deceive is a
> good way to cover, say, making true statements but sending them from
> an "imposter" email account. -Goethe
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Perhaps our criterion of illegality should be whether the message
> included intent to deceive, not absolute positive belief in the
> statement's truth.
I liked a version that included intent to deceive, Zefram didn't care
for it so it disappeared from Murp
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> YOU MISS THE POINT. WHY IS IT JUST OR VALUABLE TO AGORA TO FORCE US TO
> ANSWER TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THIS SORT OF THING IN THE FIRST PLACE
> THIS PLACE HAS BEEN CRIMINALIZED ENOUGH, AND NOW YOU'RE ASKING US TO BE
> PARANOID ABOUT OUR EVERY AT
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> although (a) to be fair, I covered those attempts with various disclaimers
> explaining the situation, although (b) I'm puzzled by the disclaimers issue.
> If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action stateme
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> Links? I haven't been following the full discussion.
>>> From memory: Goethe, as an officer in the past, attempted to give
>> someo
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Links? I haven't been following the full discussion.
> >From memory: Goethe, as an officer in the past, attempted to give
> someone a fractional amount of currency because a
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> immediately when the voting period ends (and in general, I don't think
> it should be illegal to try to vote on something after the end of the
> voting period, because that would entail the voter, rather tha
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> although (a) to be fair, I covered those attempts with various disclaimers
> explaining the situation, although (b) I'm puzzled by the disclaimers issue.
> If you disclaim an action (those of you who claim that action statements
> can be false) wouldn't
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> Intentionally failing to perform an action is a form of dishonesty,
>>> and it should be every bit as illegal as any other lie. Do
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Links? I haven't been following the full discussion.
>From memory: Goethe, as an officer in the past, attempted to give
someone a fractional amount of currency because a rule forced em to do
so (and this action failed); I gave the example of th
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:02 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Intentionally failing to perform an action is a form of dishonesty,
>> and it should be every bit as illegal as any other lie. Do you have a
>> specific scenario in mind wher
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Intentionally failing to perform an action is a form of dishonesty,
> and it should be every bit as illegal as any other lie. Do you have a
> specific scenario in mind where this is not the case?
Goethe and I have both posted examples of such s
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, let's take a look at how performing actions by announcement works.
> You write a message stating that you perform an action, and somehow, when you
> send off the message, it happens. (Note that this is actually ISTID
There has been recent debate over whether a failing action should be illegal
or not. Here's some arguments.
First, let's take a look at how performing actions by announcement works.
You write a message stating that you perform an action, and somehow, when you
send off the message, it happens. (Not
26 matches
Mail list logo
