On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 8 Nov 2008, at 21:16, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Worst judgement evar. "X was intended therefore X is what is true" is so > awfully against > any spirit of Nomic that I can't even begin to comprehend it. Equity is > pushing > it, but > it doesn't act as if the intention is what is true - it just tries to resolve > the offset > between the intention and reality. This is Bad.
It's not X is "what is intended", it's X is what is *written in the contract* in everything but name. The principle is that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a damn duck, even if it's claiming to be a horse. -Goethe
