On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > The delivery of text identical to another Proposal which was > Proposed less than three weeks previous does not create a > new Proposal unless accompanied by a clear and explicit > indication that the intent was to Propose a duplicate Proposal. > This is part of the historical record I was thinking of. But I > wonder if its removal was a mistake? That some of those case of > the same text were, by definition, the same proposal?
Well, but it's all or nothing. If the intent in question was in fact to Propose a duplicate Proposal, then you have a new Proposal that's the same ordinary language "proposal" as the first one. > No, it's trivial. Think databases. The relation "One text per > proposal" does not imply "one proposal per text." If we're going to use a computer analogy, if a proposal is a database row-- part of the gamestate 'database' it can be changed. The only way a proposal can't be changed is if it's precisely the sum of its parts-- a tuple, perhaps, of (text, ai, ii). But that raises the duplicate-proposal issues before.
