On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, omd wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Playing with the nesting a bit: > > > > scshunt purports [Murphy purports [result]] > > But such a message would probably include enough context to make it > clear that it's purporting to do something that indirectly causes the > decision to be resolved - which might count as "purporting to resolve > the decision". (note that clearly scshunt is not resolving a > decision, but the clause in R2034 is about a *message* purportedly > resolving a decision, which is more vaguely defined.)
I'm just going to insist on quibbling here. Because this is the finest agoran point I've quibbled on this month. If a promise when cashed is officially a message from Murphy; Then a failed promise is no message (empty text). So it would legally be: scshunt: I purport [blank message]. Let me be clear, if the promise had no conditional requiring the statement be accurate in order to be cashed, I'd agree with you completely.
