Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When X does not exist independently of the rules. What if it says This Rule defines X. X is a Y.? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can't prove anything. -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

Eris wrote: On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When X does not exist independently of the rules. What if it says This Rule defines X. X is a Y.? If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either lying, or using This Rule defines X as a gloss for This Rule defines

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

Eris wrote: On 1/13/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either lying, or using This Rule defines X as a gloss for This Rule defines a property of X. In either case, repealing the rule does not cause X to cease to exist. How

Re: DIS: a bigger bug -- no gamestate changes?

Goethe wrote: proto-CFJ Proposal 4882 (The Lady, or the Tiger?) can have no effect on Goethe's registration status. Arguments R594/8, no longer in effect, contained the following text: For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal