On 3/11/24 21:54, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > (It's also possible that the caller was wondering whether the message > might have performed actions other than creating a CFJ, e.g., whether > publishing the disclaimer was itself an action. Rule 2466 implies that > the ruleset draws a distinction between actions and messages, e.g. a > general permission to take actions on behalf of someone still doesn't > let you sent messages on eir behalf. The last paragraph of rule 2125 > makes it irrelevant whether the *sending* of a message is an action or > not, by clarifying that the ruleset cannot prevent the sending of a > message, and by explicitly allowing the ruleset to criminalize the > sending of certain messages regardless of whether doing so is an > action – although, even if the sending of a message were an action, it > would not be an action contained within the email itself. So the answer > to the question of "does the message contain any actions at all, even > actions other than the caling of a CFJ?" is "it at least doesn't > contain any *relevant* actions".)
FWIW this was more-so the argument I was implicitly making, that if I can block something from being an action, then perhaps that blocking is itself an action (which makes the statement a paradoxical lie). I'm not 100% convinced by this line of reasoning but I agree that at least in this construction it's probably not an action with game consequences, and therefore there's not much argument that could convince a judge to not rule DISMISS or IRRELEVANT. -- nix
