Re: OFF: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement

2020-04-06 Thread Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
On 4/6/2020 7:39 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > And I certainly don't remember that second paragraph. However necessary it > may be (to avoid AI=1 proposals defining higher powered rules to mean their > opposite or whatever), it reads like actual nonsense at first glance. > Although I

Re: OFF: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement

2020-04-06 Thread Rebecca via agora-discussion
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:36 AM Rebecca wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:28 AM Kerim Aydin via > agora-discussiongora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> >> On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote: >> > I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they >>

Re: OFF: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement

2020-04-06 Thread Rebecca via agora-discussion
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:28 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussiongora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote: > > I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they > should > > be abolished. And I think that my grammatical argum

Re: OFF: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement

2020-04-06 Thread Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote: > I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they should > be abolished. And I think that my grammatical arguments are enough to > sustain the judgement. Personally, I think your first judgement was sufficient (and good)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement

2020-04-05 Thread Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 02:04, Rebecca via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I think by whatever dictionary meaning of the word any you use, universal > or existential, I can at least convince you all that the sentence is so > ambiguous as to be unsolvable with pure Englis

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement

2020-04-05 Thread Rebecca via agora-discussion
I think by whatever dictionary meaning of the word any you use, universal or existential, I can at least convince you all that the sentence is so ambiguous as to be unsolvable with pure English. Although I could have used other factors in resolving the case, I opted to use "common sense" (an enumer

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement

2020-04-05 Thread Rebecca via agora-discussion
""A worker CAN dispose of a shipment if a recipient cannot eat any apple within" I think this sentence means the same thing as my example sentence. If "a recipient can eat any apple within the shipment", they can eat every single apple because any is universal here, the apple is arbitrarily select

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement

2020-04-05 Thread Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
I just realized I top-posted. I apologize. -Aris On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 8:46 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not actually convinced by the region example; I initially read that > the other way, and on rereading think it's ambiguous. Still, the apple > example

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement

2020-04-05 Thread Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
I'm not actually convinced by the region example; I initially read that the other way, and on rereading think it's ambiguous. Still, the apple example seems sound, and I find that a good enough as an analogue. Good judgement! -Aris On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 5:56 PM Rebecca via agora-business < agora