On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
== CFJ 2133 ==
Speech act. The previous sentence is false. results in
speech act being performed.
I judge FALSE.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whups, I was too late! This nullifies Zefram's arguments in 2087,
dunno what to do with that now. -Goethe
Zefram: For the record, I am dubious about this interpretation of a statement
being made, and action being taken, at
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
While
I'm not sure a phrase like simultaneous but ordered makes sense,
it's one I might use in this situation.
Simultaneous but ordered makes perfect sense, but that breaks
when a later message goes back and modifies a previous one (the
preceding
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Maybe I'm misreading this, but it seems to me that the context of the
process of making a statement contained in a message is the
publication of that entire message. While the ordering of actions
announced in a message can be significant, we should
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Followup: The old Rule 1527 has been repealed. Nothing has explicitly
replaced it and so the Rules are silent on how to deal with those
situations now. It is perfectly in keeping with custom and precedent,
then, to use
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Followup: The old Rule 1527 has been repealed. Nothing has explicitly
replaced it and so the Rules are silent on how to deal with those
situations now. It is perfectly in keeping with
6 matches
Mail list logo
