On Sat, 6 Jun 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I recuse myself from this case. Apologies, will let someone else
>> sort out subject lines. Note: I previously favored this one:
>> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-May/020706.html
>
> I actually changed the random suggestion on 2547 to you because I
> mis-read which one you'd favored, but caught it in time to save
> the correct one (2549) for you in the next rotation.
I appreciate that. It made me ponder the following interesting question:
1. The rules say that a person SHALL do X. The obligation arises at
time t, and at time t it is POSSIBLE for the person to do X.
2. At time t+1, that person does legal (but optional) move Y that makes
it IMPOSSIBLE to subsequently do X.
3. Can that person then be punished for failure to do X?
(I was going to ask this as an inquiry question rather than a criminal
one if you'd ended up "breaching" the rule by missing that assignment).
-G.
