Boy, what a bunch of lying going on. I hope y'all others can teach these folks that a purposeful lie is a purposeful lie, whether or not it also happens to be a game action (and DISCLAIMERS to the contrary notwithstanding).
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > ihope wrote: >> Claim of error: That is wrong. >> >> The above is a claim of error in every current outstanding >> self-ratifying public document. > > I deny that claim of error for each self-ratifying public document > contained in a message of mine it references. Note that this does not > imply that that claim of error is necessarily incorrect; I am merely > taking the game action of denying a claim of error, which in my view > has no bearing on whether the claim is correct or not. > > -- > DISCLAIMER: Any opinions in the above message may not be shared by my > employer (if I in fact have an employer), and possibly not even shared > by me. Any statements in the above message are not necessarily true, > even if the message makes them appear to be so, although any game > actions I take in the above message still have an effect. I may or > may not believe that this sort of disclaimer is a blatant attempt to > try to get round rule 2149, and may or may not care that this sig is > far too long to normally be accepted on Usenet. This disclaimer also > applies to the disclaimer itself, in that nothing in it is or should > be construed as a claim by me that it is necessarily true for the > purposes of rule 2149, although that does not prevent any claims in > it (or the message above, for that matter) to be true. The above > message and this disclaimer claim to have been written by ais523 (who, > like ehird, has 100 points), and this entire sentence is a claim as > to the identity of the message's poster. I do not warrant that > attempting to use any scams in the above message or the associated > disclaimer may or may not be useful for you or get you into Agoran > legal jeopardy, and do not make any claim either way as to whether > doing so violates copyright or patent law (or trademark law, for that > matter). This signature was not checked by a lawyer. Who reads these > things anyway? >
