Yes, yes I would.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:21 PM, nch wrote:
I think it's a big jump from "this means you can publish any type of
thing without specifying it" and "this means you can publish any type
of thing with any qualities without it actually possessing those
qualities."
If it said that the notice had to be in all caps and iambic
pentameter, would you argue that you've met those conditions as well?
On 7/17/19 10:14 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
My point is that it doesn't matter if it's "conspicuous". Because the
conspicuousness requirement gets folded into the noun phrase, it gets
swept into the broken definition of to "publish". If my reading is
correct, I have published _literally everything_ by sending a public
message. By that logic, I have also published "a conspicuous
announcement of intent to [do whatever]".
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:10 PM, nch wrote:
Oh I missed the "that" on first reading too. I still don't see how
it is conspicuous by your arguments. I don't think the rules vaguely
implying that it's possible, and not being noticed until now, is
conspicuous.
On 7/17/19 10:04 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Sorry, there should be a "that" in my initial quote, the noun
phrase being "an announcement of intent *that unambiguously, [...]
specified the action intended to be taken and the method(s) to be
used".
If the sentence were to instead read "A person published an
announcement of intent that clearly quacked." (all I did was
simplify the part after "that", it is obvious that the wording
"that clearly quacked" modifies "announcement [of intent]".
And, anyway, if this reading is correct, as ais523 notes, we have
bigger problems than whether or not I have Declared Apathy.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 10:59 PM, nch wrote:
On 7/17/19 9:50 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Since the "unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
obfuscation" is an adjective phrase that modifies "an
announcement of intent", it, too, is brought into the scope of
the placeholder (X), and thus I 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", as I have sent a public message. Your argument would
hold if the clarity phrasing were to instead apply to the act of
publishing, but it is broken because it applies to the noun
"announcement".
Jason Cobb
Those are adverbs, not adjectives. They modify 'published' as in
"unambiguously published" They do not, and cannot modify "an
announcement of intent." "Unambiguously announcement" is
unnatural, and incorrect. It wold be "unambiguous announcement".
On 7/17/19 10:47 PM, nch wrote:
That's a fair point in response to my first argument. I noticed
a few rules that say 'posted' instead of published, so that
should probably be cleaned up. Still, the method you published
the intent isn't "unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and
without obfuscation". You even admit as much by saying "No, you
didn't miss an intent (well, at least not one that stated what I
was doing)."
On 7/17/19 9:39 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I specifically address this: the definition of Objector in Rule
2124 does not use the broken verbiage, it says "An Objector to
an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has
publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the
announcement of that intent." - no usage of "publish" or
"announce".
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 10:36 PM, nch wrote:
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.
