That's the definition of "limit" as a noun, not a verb. Rule 2125
clearly uses it as a verb.
Jason Cobb
On 6/20/19 10:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Limit, the first definition off of google
"a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or
pass."
does not = CANNOT, may not = SHALL NOT (or MAY NOT) . It fits directly from
the definition and from common sense. and from what the rule's intent was
and what it means to do.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:18 PM Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Using your interpretation of "limit" would certainly get us out of this
specific case, but it would set some ugly precendent about the word that
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with.
On 6/20/19 6:49 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my
interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to
whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by paradox, because they
haven't found an actual paradox!
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of
the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is
prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it
says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the
same
formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the
formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact,
and is
properly considered a logical undecidability.
FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically
undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient.
Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft
would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is
still based on the forbidden interpretation.
--
Trigon
