========================= Criminal Case 1716 =========================
Peekee has violated Rule 2149 by deliberately or recklessly making
the false statement "maybe"
Called by omd: 03 Aug 2007 16:02:41 GMT
Defendant Peekee informed: 03 Aug 2007 16:13:25 GMT
Assigned to Taral: 06 Aug 2007 16:33:37 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended: 10 Aug 2007 16:13:25 GMT
Judged UNIMPUGNED by Taral: 22 Aug 2007 05:58:20 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by Peekee:
I quote Rule 2149/1 (Power=1):
Players SHALL NOT deliberately or recklessly make false
statements in any public message. Merely quoting a false
statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this
rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier
attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement for
the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is
what is significant.
I did not violate the rule on the following grounds:
1) "maybe" was not sent to a public forum.
2) "maybe" by itself can not be evaluated to a be false.
3) Assuming its context comes into play the statement "maybe I am Peekee who
was a player intermittently up to 2004" is true not false. I would evaluate
"mabye P" as follows:
"It might be the case that P"
"Either P or not P"
The last statement is true assuming the logical rule of the excluded middle.
Judge Taral's Arguments:
I would first like to state that I dislike being handed criminal cases
with no case being made by the prosecution. I know this is permitted,
but it's obnoxious.
The defendant has made an excellent set of arguments for a judgement
of UNIMPUGNED. I so judge.
Let the following also be entered into the record: comex, you suck. :P