Something didn't feel right about my last message...

I just realized that rule 2450 does _not_ define what a pledge is - it cannot, because then it would need to provide a mechanism for making them, which it clearly doesn't. So it presumably defers to the common sense definition, which means that there's nothing regulating pledges that are _not_ to perform or refrain from performing actions. And thus, the pledge does exist.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:

 You clearly understand my point, though. Since V.J. is referring to a
 pledge that doesn't exist, saying "the pledge above is true" just doesn't
 really mean anything. I wouldn't call them "lies", or "intending to
 mislead" because I don't see any of that in there.

 If you want me to change the /terminology/, sure, I will do that, but I'm
 afraid I am rather hidebound in my decision.

I understand and I disagree. "the pledge above is true" means that the pledge above exists and is true. It has a completely clear meaning, and if it was made knowing/believing that the pledge doesn't exist, it could be a lie for that reason.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Reply via email to