Index ← 2556a CFJ 2556 2557a → text
==============================  CFJ 2556  ==============================

    A pledge I created that included the text 'pigs fly' has been
    terminated

========================================================================

Caller:                                 Quazie

Judge:                                  Rodlen
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 2556a
Decision:                               REMAND


Judge:                                  Rodlen
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 2556b
Decision:                               REASSIGN


Judge:                                  Pavitra
Judgement:                              TRUE

========================================================================

History:

Called by Quazie:                       01 Jun 2009 18:02:59 GMT
Assigned to Rodlen:                     06 Jun 2009 06:52:23 GMT
Judged TRUE by Rodlen:                  06 Jun 2009 07:16:48 GMT
Appealed by Yally:                      07 Jun 2009 02:32:12 GMT
Appealed by G.:                         07 Jun 2009 03:07:15 GMT
Appealed by allispaul:                  07 Jun 2009 13:50:46 GMT
Appeal 2556a:                           07 Jun 2009 13:50:46 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     11 Jun 2009 16:57:34 GMT
Assigned to Rodlen:                     11 Jun 2009 16:57:34 GMT
Judged TRUE by Rodlen:                  13 Jun 2009 04:47:22 GMT
Appealed by G.:                         13 Jun 2009 05:15:33 GMT
Appealed by scshunt:                    13 Jun 2009 06:04:09 GMT
Appealed by allispaul:                  13 Jun 2009 08:31:14 GMT
Appealed by Murphy:                     13 Jun 2009 15:14:31 GMT
Appeal 2556b:                           13 Jun 2009 15:14:31 GMT
REASSIGNED on Appeal:                   17 Jun 2009 17:36:01 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra:                    25 Jun 2009 15:43:39 GMT
Judged TRUE by Pavitra:                 26 Jun 2009 03:00:07 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:16 PM, comex  wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 10:49 -0400, Quazie wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Geoffrey Spear 
wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Quazie  wrote:
>>> >> I nominate Murphy as Clerk of the Courts.  I pledge that anyone can
>>> >> make me accept the nomination of Clerk of the Courts if pigs fly.
>>> >
>>> > I act on behalf of Quazie to accept eir nomination for Clerk of the
Courts.
>>> >
>>> > Disclaimer: the above may fail if either ham sandwiches or policemen
>>> > on airplanes don't count as "pigs flying".
>>> >
>>> I CFJ on the following statement "My nomination for Cleck of the
>>> Courts has been accepted"
>>
>> I terminate the above inner-quoted pledge as obsolete; either it does
>> something and has been used, in which case it no longer does anything,
>> and therefore is obsolete; or it never did anything in the first place,
>> in which case it is also obsolete.
>
> The definition of "pigs fly" may be, e.g., a real pig is flying, not
> inside an enclosed vehicle (such as an airplane), but possibly with
> other forms of assistance (such as a paraglider).  Using such a
> definition, "pigs fly" was probably false at the time Wobble purported
> to act on behalf of Quazie, but may reasonably become true in the
> future.

========================================================================

Judge Rodlen's Arguments:

Ignoring the non-animal meaning of pig, some pigs fly.  The inflatable pigs
used in the live shows of Pink Floyd have sometimes flown off, therefore being
pigs flying.  Therefore, technically, some pigs fly.  In fact, some human
"pigs" fly planes.  The pledge never said that the pigs had to be real, or
living, or even the kind of animal commonly known as a pig.

Therefore, the pledge has been terminated.

========================================================================

Appellant Yally's Arguments:

As "when pigs fly" is not reasonably defined in the rules or contract of which
Quazie may been refering to, the regular English definition of the phrase must
withhold. Dictionary.com defines the phrase "when pigs fly" as "Never."

========================================================================

Appellant G.'s Arguments:

I support both of these intents, noting that this is a pledge under
equity and the spirit and intent of the phrase is more important that
a literal translation such as one might get from a translation service.  -G.

========================================================================

Judge Rodlen's Arguments:

To quote Wikipedia:

"Terms are words and compound words that are used in specific contexts."

"When pigs fly" is not a term, under that definition.  The words involved
might not be terms either under that definition...wait...

Well, based on that, and taking it literally again...

TRUE.

========================================================================

Appellant G.'s Arguments:

Oh fer crying out loud, that adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion
recommended by the appeals court.  I intend to call for appeal of CFJ 2553
and 2556 with 2 supporters, and recommend REASSIGN.

========================================================================

Appellant scshunt's Arguments:

I support (why did my judicial sanctions proposal fail again?)

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by Yally:

[attempted to complete G.'s intent to appeal, but did not support first]

========================================================================

Judge Pavitra's Arguments:

I accept the arguments of H. Appellants Yally and G. to the effect that,
at least in the context of an Equitable contract, "when pigs fly" should
be read idiomatically rather than literally. Requiring word-resolution
interpretation of terms at the expense of the holistic meaning of
phrases would drastically change the meaning of terms such as "Agoran
decision".

It is tempting to argue that "CAN foo when pigs fly" should be
interpreted to mean something rather nothing; i.e., that the pledge as a
whole should have some function.

Phrases like "when pigs fly", "when hell freezes over", etc. generally
imply not simply "never" but a certain pattern of /reason/ that the
event or events described will never happen. For example, "I'd go out
with you when hell freezes over" implies something along the lines of "I
refuse to go out with you because you are creepy and/or repulsive",
which in turn implies that a date might, theoretically, be possible in
the (in the speaker's mind extremely unlikely) event that the luckless
suitor changes emself so as to become no longer creepy or repulsive.

In this case, the unlikely-to-change circumstances appear to be that the
pledgor doesn't want the job. Sufficient evidence of a change in this
circumstance would almost certainly constitute a new act-on-behalf
pledge in its own right. I therefore judge that, at least in this
particular case, "CAN when pigs fly" evaluates to "CANNOT". TRUE.

========================================================================