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
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
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 actually
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.
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,
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
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 where this
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 the
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 you have a
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 the
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 than
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 rule
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
someone a
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 statements
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 ATTEMPT
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
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
And
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
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
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
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 any other lie.
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 to be
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 maybe not
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 it
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 happy
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).
Trivial to
26 matches
Mail list logo
