Okay.
Let's take "clear" as an example adjective. If you agree that a public
message can publish a thing without specifying it, sending a public
message is "publishing" the message "I like cats.", which is certainly
clear. By the same logic, my public message is also "publishing" the
message "skfdhkjsdfhksdjf" (intentionally gibberish), which is certainly
unclear. Thus, my one public message has published both a notice that is
clear and a notice that is unclear. That's my logic at least.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:29 PM, nch wrote:
I don't buy this reasoning, it invalidates the meaning of those words
and nothing in the text redefines those words. I buy the idea that you
can publish something without specifying it, but it doesn't follow
that it somehow has every quality imaginable.
On 7/17/19 10:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
No. In addition to publishing an unambiguous, conspicuous,
unobfuscated, and clear notice, I have _in addition_ published a
notice (all possible notices, in fact) that was ambiguous,
inconspicuous, obfuscated, and unclear.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:24 PM, nch wrote:
So your notice is also ambiguous, inconspicuous, obfuscated, and
unclear?
On 7/17/19 10:23 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
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.
