On 06/08/2013 2:36 PM, Craig Daniel wrote:
They're actually mostly not for counterscam purposes, as I don't claim
they actually have any scammy effect. (Rather, I claim that their
destroyability is paradoxical, and therefore I ought to be able to get
a win by paradox in the near future. I'm
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013, Fool wrote in response to Craig Daniel:
I also notice that nothing stops anyone else from repeating what you just did
and also winning. I'm sure a lot of people see this. And yet nobody's doing
it. It sort of looks like nobody cares.
I understood ais523's judgement to
On 12/08/2013 11:44 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013, Fool wrote in response to Craig Daniel:
I also notice that nothing stops anyone else from repeating what you
just did and also winning. I'm sure a lot of people see this. And yet
nobody's doing it. It sort of looks like nobody
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:30 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
00:53 tswett If a rule were to say if it is POSSIBLE to do X, then
it is POSSIBLE to do Y, I think we would treat
this as meaning something very different from if it
is IMPOSSIBLE to do Y, then it is POSSIBLE to do
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 10:24 -0400, Craig Daniel wrote:
The above is intended primarily to weigh in on the subject of the
success of Fool's scam. However, just in case it was buggy (case 2 or
4 above), I submit the following
Alternative, far shorter argument for TRUE: Fool's alleged conditions were
circular and therefore meaningless.
–Machiavelli, whose dash seems to be rather short at the moment
I was looking at it more like a stack than a circle but then again stack
is more of a magic the gathering thing though it does work in this case
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
Alternative, far shorter argument for TRUE: Fool's alleged conditions were
The thing is, though, Fool doesn't really have a plan. E created the
promises and then (allegedly) deregistered everyone else; now it doesn't
matter what happens to the promises, because Fool's already finished.
The fact that destroying one promise changes matters with regards to the
other
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
Arguments:
I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not. I agree that
00:53 tswett If a rule were to say if it is POSSIBLE to do X, then
it is POSSIBLE to do Y, I think we would treat
this as meaning
ok we can attack this from either side and still arrive at the same
conclusion though you have to admit that timing of moves is a key element
of gaming
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
The thing is, though, Fool doesn't really have a plan. E created the
10 matches
Mail list logo
