The definition as verb is to " set or serve as a limit (the noun) to" so it's just the same
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:29 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >> > > > -- >From R. Lee
