Subject: Re: Simplex: Up for another iteration?
From: Jeffrey Reinecke <>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 01:43:21

>At 12:38 AM 9/13/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>>At 09:27 PM 9/12/98 -0700, you wrote:

>Am I correct in summarizing:
>1 By examination of the two cases, it can be seen that the LAW 115 grants
>authority to citizens to do things even to the extent that they regulate
>and prohibit.
>2 You hold that in further and subsequent actions things can happen by 115
>which deny these texts.
>3 The second logical step is permissible because no system of precedence IN
>THE LAWS THEMSLEVES indicates that one 115 action has authority over
>another. And this leads to contradiction.
>? (see above, this was a question)

Yes, that is my logic.

>If yes, then I refer you back to step one. Included in the various
>regulations was a system of precedence which showed that
>the statement "a retroactive action is JUST as legal" is in fact not true.
>If you examine MMM (I've got his current text at
> ) you'll see that
>except in very strict cases he vetos retroactive actions. The only thing
>not vetoed is the retroactive action which created the whole thingie,
>action scheme itself (the Definosaur).

Argh! When I use your logic, your right. And when I use my logic, I'm
right. I'm going insane here. It is hard to be jugling multiple logic
systems in your head, and have to make them all self coherent and legal.

>The more I think about this the worse I like it. I'm beginning to think
>we're both wrong because we bring to many assumptions to the game. For
>example, the assumtion that Laws are the highest form of authority. We're
>not prohibited from creating "SKOOBAs" which act like laws but are
>stronger, why don't we do so?

Me too. This is all just way too rediculous now. I think were going to
have to do something drastic, on the way of a compramise. We seem to be
at a point where we each have eachother in a miserable place. I'm willing
to make a settlement if you are. I can could withdraw my win claim if I
wanted. I really think we need a real Consitutional convention. We need
to just start over, from scratch, and this time get more people involved
in the construction of the Constitution. This last time, you were the
only other person who made any kind of contribution at all. I wouldn't
mind you becoming dictator if that was what was needed to have a
Constitutional convention, but I'd rather just end this game and start a
new one, so that we are all on equal footings. Start with a clean slate.
See what I mean? If you were dictator, this wouldn't be so. If we find a
way to end this game, we could have a Constitutional Commitee whose job
would be to write a new Constitution that we all unanimously vote for. I
agree this is the easy way out, but unless we all work together now, it
will be the only way out. We unify, or die.

>We could do that [Not what I just said, the RFJ thing], sure. But my
growing sense of disillusionment makes me
>think that even this can't fix the problems being identified. The rule
>that produces RFJs is even lower than 115 and mutable to boot. It seems
>that for once we've got a clear precendence scheme that allows the (in your
>interpretation) totally anarchic 115 actions to make mince meat of RFJs.

Well, I don't know. The Judge's powers are more explicit in the laws.
I'd have to analyze it closely, but it would seem to me that the Judge's
would have the power to overrule. But as I said, I'd actually have to
analyze instead of work off of impressions.

>Uggg... (why didn't you just let me be dictator and fix this stuff?)

I'd rather we did it on an equal footing. I admit I'm a little
hipocritical in that I fixed the Judgeing without anyone. But the
Constitution needs such a massive overhaul to work, that our band-aid
fixes do dittly squat in the long run. Of course, we'll always have these
problems, even if we did rewrite it. Therefore, I think that we either
unify, and work together to fix things, or, we will most surely die.


Jeffrey Reinecke