On 7/17/19 9:19 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Arguments The key (broken) wording here is from Rule 478: A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. This wording does not require that the public message actually contains the "something" that I am publishing/announcing. This wording effectively says that, for all X, a person "publishes" or "announces" X by sending a public message.
By this reasoning everyone that has sent a public message in that time has objected, since objecting would be a possible value of X.
Rule 2465 states that I can Declare Apathy without Objection. By Rule 2595, I must fulfill certain conditions to do so. I will prove that I have done so for each one individually: 1. "[I must have] published an announcement of intent that unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation specified the action to be taken and the method(s) to be used". This invokes the definition of to "publish", which is specified in Rule 478. Putting parentheses around the object of to publish, "[I must have] published (an announcement of intent that unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation specified the action to be taken and the method(s) to be used)". Going back to my paraphrased definition of to "publish", the parenthesized phrase takes the place of the placeholder X, and thus to "publish" such an announcement of intent is to send a public message. I certainly have done so, an example one is in evidence.
I don't see how this can be considered to be either unambiguous or without obfuscation.
