On 06/15/2011 11:31 PM, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I think the timing of truth values and disclaimers is in fact "more
>> complex and less clear." For example, if disclaimers work immediately
>> forward, it would imply they could work immediately backwards
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think the timing of truth values and disclaimers is in fact "more
> complex and less clear." For example, if disclaimers work immediately
> forward, it would imply they could work immediately backwards, with
> connotations that a "message" n
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 05:53 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> > This is not at all obvious to me. Backwards-disclaimers *might* work if
> > the disclaimer was in the same atomic message as the disclaimed text,
> > but in the case of any kind of confusion, I would strongly lean to
On 06/15/2011 05:53 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> This is not at all obvious to me. Backwards-disclaimers *might* work if
> the disclaimer was in the same atomic message as the disclaimed text,
> but in the case of any kind of confusion, I would strongly lean towards
> evaluating in chronological order, wit
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> CFJs 1451-1452 establish that messages generally can be split into
> multiple emails.
Gratuitious: yes, but in those cases, the messages were reasonably
clearly marked as forming a single message. In this case, the messages
are reasonably clearly
On 06/15/2011 04:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> if disclaimers work immediately
> forward, it would imply they could work immediately backwards
(I suggest using 'atomic message' to mean the ordinary sense of an email
message, and 'compound message' to mean the legal fiction of a message
reconstructed
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:58 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I believe precedent is that if a disclaimer implies that something may
>>> not actually be true, it's not an announcement.
>>
>> If so, we need to calculate a whole lot o
Wooble wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:58 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I believe precedent is that if a disclaimer implies that something may
>> not actually be true, it's not an announcement.
>
> If so, we need to calculate a whole lot of gamestate. "I vote 5* FOR.
> Disclaimer:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:58 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I believe precedent is that if a disclaimer implies that something may
>> not actually be true, it's not an announcement.
>
> If so, we need to calcula
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:58 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe precedent is that if a disclaimer implies that something may
> not actually be true, it's not an announcement.
If so, we need to calculate a whole lot of gamestate. "I vote 5* FOR.
Disclaimer: this might not work, I'm
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "not necessarily true" doesn't imply automatically false, does it?
I believe precedent is that if a disclaimer implies that something may
not actually be true, it's not an announcement.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:56 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Disclaimer: The remainder of this message is not necessarily true.
>
> I CFJ on the following statement: This CFJ will exist one second from now.
>
> Disclaimer: The above disclaimer is not necessarily true. This
> disclaimer take
12 matches
Mail list logo
