Re: 169:A (more)

From: Anton Cox (
Date: Thu Oct 04 2001 - 01:25:10 PDT

On 3 Oct 2001, Richard S. Holmes wrote:

> Actually let me make a more forceful claim: that "(hopefully X) and so
> Y" is *not* a reasonable interpretation.  The phrase "and so" tells us
> that Y is a (definite) consequence of something, namely, the thing
> before "and so".  But how can an indefinite wish ("hopefully X") have
> a definite consequence?  In order to "know what's going on" with
> certainty I *must* "have a copy of the board" -- Alan's wishing that I
> might have one isn't sufficient.

I guess I did not express my reading very well. What I meant to convey
that given X (which was what was hoped) it would then follow that
Y. That is "Hopefully you have a copy and so will follow" means
"(hopefully you have a copy) AND (IF you have a copy THEN you will
follow)", rather than "hopefully (you have a copy and you will
follow)". The hope is only that we have a copy - not that we will both
have a copy and (given that copy) be able to follow. Once we have a
copy, it is not down to hope that we will be able to follow.

I have a copy of the board - I regard any attempt to claim that the
attachment we were sent is in fact not the copy mentioned in the rule
as well beyond the borders of reasonable interpretation. I could open
it and read it, and am not using the web version. My copy of
the board does not have a side (or a counter at the side on it). For a
copy to have a different number of dimensions to the original is not
merely to be "missing details"! And a changing counter on the face of
the board is also not something that any copy (especially one from
which, we are told, we will "know what is going on") can lack.

I vote AGAINST the three proposals so far made (or such of them as are
regarded by the judge as still being on the table).

Best Wishes,


Rule Date: 2001-10-04 08:24:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST