Re: [NOISE] [Wager: Seeming Resolution]

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 04:16 AM 4/25/96 +0000, Jonathon Blake wrote:
>
>	Jim:
>
>On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
>
>> Notice that he hasn't presented what he would claim to be the scope of the 
>> conditions, which suggests that he's going to try to spring them on me 
>
>	I haven't seen a list of your conditions yet.
>
>	How about placing your minimally acceptable requirements 
>	for accepting Black Unicorn's Wager.  

At the very least, he'd have to IDENTIFY himself at least to the extent that 
I have done so.  Name, address, telephone number, etc.  


>> the examples quoted in that SC decision, which were cited as exceptions to 
>> 5th amendment protections in the US, all of them represent examples which 
>> were only considered technologically useful in the last 100 years, the 
>> oldest being fingerprinting.  Given this, it is easy to conclude that there 
>
>	Which makes it interesting that he provides an Ecclesiastical 
>	Court Decision from the Seventeenth Century.  
>
>	It isn't the US, but you haven't made an limitations 
>	as to which legal system is acceptable.

As you quoted me above, you are aware that my point was that the SC-listed 
exceptions to the 5th amendment were recent and didn't have older US 
precedent.  I claimed that there was no logical reason to believe that such 
claimed exceptions were anything other than comparatively recent excuses 
given to allow violations of the 5th amendment.   While I am not totally 
disinterested in foreign examples, that was NOT the area under discussion. A 
foreign example is irrelevant because it does not challenge my claim. Notice 
that Unicorn has studiously avoided my original observation.