On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:39, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/07/2010 10:22 AM, comex wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Aaron Goldfein<aarongoldf...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> The issue with this case comes with the word "satisfy." dictionary.com >>> defines the word satisfy as "to fulfill the desires, expectations, >>> needs, or demands of." This implies that once these needs are >>> satisfied, they continue to be satisfied until some outside effect >>> makes them no longer satisfied. >> >> I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support. Unlike the proof of >> a theorem, winning the game is supposed to be an instantaneous, not >> continuous, event, and e.g. "When one or more persons satisfy at least >> one Winning Condition and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all >> such persons win the game." implies that, in the case of ambiguity, we >> should prefer the interpretation where satisfying a Winning Condition >> only happens for an instant. > > I support and do so because the judgment fails to address CFJ 2489, which it > appears to contradict. > > -coppro
I was not aware of this CFJ when I issued my decision.
