From: Mike Dougherty (msd001@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Mar 12 2008 - 19:31:31 MDT
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Mark Waser <mwaser@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Excellent! I will add a disputed clause to my declaration. I would
> request that you let me know when I can remove it. I would argue that
> I should be able remove it immediately since there is reasonable doubt that
>
> - you are a Friendly entity because you yourself said " I concede
> that I have made both Friendly and UnFriendly declarations in the name of
> Friendliness and must (under the rules presented so far) demand that you
> retract your declaration of Friendly and simultaneously retract my own. I
> believe we have both been UnFriendly in our efforts to pursue a state of
> Friendly."
> - you performed sufficient due diligence before declaring me
> UnFriendly (since you didn't communicate with me and attempt to resolve our
> differences, most specifically including the differences between our
> individual versions of Friendliness since you did not understand that you
> should not have made your demand that I retract my declaration according to
> my stated rules).
>
> May I remove the disputed clause from my declaration? If you say yes
> immediately, then I will not insist upon a declaration of UnFriendly action
> (interfering with my declaration) be appended to your next declaration. If
> you say no (or wait unreasonably long before replying), I shall insist on
> such a clause (for a fairly short period of time since I'm such a nice guy
> :-).
>
You may remove the disputed clause .. or you may not. I prefer to remain
non-committal regarding your insistance to declare my action UnFriendly
conditional on my next declaration. I have not waited very long at all to
reply, but feel that your repeated insistence may be construed as
UnFriendly-ism - though perhaps not by me or those local members of our
Friendly Society, but to a majority of the more Conservatively Friendly
Citizens who are implicitly assumed by their nature to be Anonymously
Friendly.
I believe I may further accept your definition of Friendly at considerable
expense to all other relevant terms used in your declaration, such as;
(un)Reasonable, Immediately, Insist, and Fairly Short Period. I will,
however, grant that your positive reception of my previous post in this
thread is indicative that you are a Nice Guy. :)
> Thank you *VERY* much. I enjoyed this!
>
Agreed: If nothing else, this self-referential meta-formalism is an amusing
use of language.
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Mike Dougherty <msd001@gmail.com>
> *To:* sl4@sl4.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:26 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Friendliness SOLVED!
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 4:26 PM, <mwaser@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > The Friendliness Declaration
> >
> > Hi, I'm Mark Waser.
> >
> > I am hereby declaring myself to be a Friendly entity as of March 12,
> > 2008. I have not knowingly/intentionally performed any UnFriendly actions
> > since this date.
> >
> > I have not previously been declared UnFriendly by any declared Friendly
> > entity. I have not been requested to put any disputed actions or
> > unintentional UnFriendly actions in this declaration by any declared
> > Friendly entity.
> >
>
> I am Mike. I declare myself to be Friendly. (Yes, that's a completely
> ambiguous term, but I know it means when I declare it) I deem Mark Waser's
> declaration of Friendly to be hostile to my own definition of Friendly and
> therefor declare him to be UnFriendly. (again, I'm not sure what exactly
> Mark means by his use of the term or the significance of camelCase used
> thereupon) I hereby request a dispute resolution clause be added to the
> Mark's declaration of March 12, 2008 and further declare that the now
> defunct declaration no longer be declared.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT