[blml] Double Dummy play [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Herman De Wael]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
> Richard Hills:
> 
>>> Herman is now arguing that he is the guardian of the WBF
>>> guardians, so Herman is now arguing that he has the power
>>> to reinterpret a WBF interpretation contrary to the intent
>>> of the authors of that WBF interpretation.
>>>
>>> :-)
> 
> Herman De Wael:
> 
>> Of course, we all know that it is the Australian
>> Immigration Authority that has the sole knowledge of WHAT
>> the intent of the authors of a WBF interpretation is.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> Of course, we all know that it is an Antwerp Director who
> reads only what he wants to read, since earlier in the
> previous post a co-author of that WBF interpretation was
> specifically quoted (the quote is repeated here for those
> acolytes of the De Wael School who happen to be literate).
> 
> Grattan Endicott (WBF CoP co-author), 5th June 2007:
> 
> " ... There is no *design* to convey UI when a player
> answers a question that the laws require him to answer.
>                                         Grattan ~   +=+"
> 

Well, if a blml-reader is asked this question, he should realize that 
L75D2 requires him to lie about it. Therefore, if he speaks (what is 
called by Richard et.al.) "the truth", he is conveying UI _with 
design_, and no Australian official ifµs going to convince me otherwise.

He may still be right, but he's not going to quote the CoP and say he 
has given UI without design and hence not broken any law. I simply 
won't buy that argument.

OK?

> Herman De Wael
> 
>> If my interpretation of the words "without design" is
>> wrong ...
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> A recent book refuting the faddish quantum physics idea of
> string theory is entitled "Not Even Wrong", on the grounds
> that string theory is not scientific since by the nature of
> the theory it is impossible to prove or disprove.
> 
> (The theory of "intelligent design" is unscientific, so not
> even wrong, for the same reason.)
> 
> All of Herman's past, present and future interpretations of
> the Lawbook are not even wrong for this reason ->
> 
> WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 6:
> 
> 6. Internet Bridge Laws Mailing list.
> The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the
> Internet were mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest
> Directors, especially those in poor contact with their NBOs,
> began to take guidance from this source, some of whose
> contributors present strange opinions. The Secretary
> supported the Chairman in what he had said. The Committee
> was in part inclined to believe they should bring forward
> requests for decisions formally; the view was taken that
> subjects might be collected and brought to the Committee at
> each year's meetings.
> The Secretary remarked that past decisions and recorded
> intentions of the Committee represented the position of the
> Committee unless and until it changed them.
> 
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
> Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
> 02 6225 6776
> 
> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
> privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
> dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
> than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
> has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
> privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
> See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 
> 


-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html