Re: [NOISE] [Wager: Seeming Resolution]

[Jonathon Blake <grafolog@netcom.com>]

	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.  


> 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.  

> Isn't it interesting how Unicorn always seems to dodge the analysis and 
> replace it with precedent?

	Almost as interesting as your not admitting your errors 
	when they are pointed out to you.

        xan

        jonathon
        grafolog@netcom.com



**********************************************************************
*								     *
*	Opinions expressed don't necessarily reflect my own views.   *
*								     *
*	There is no way that they can be construed to represent      *
*	any organization's views.				     *
*								     *
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*	ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/gr/graphology/home.html	     *
*								     *
*			     OR					     *
*								     *
*       http://members.tripod.com/~graphology/index.html             *
*								     *
***********************************************************************