[blml] DWS - internal inconsistencies in lawbook[SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[David Burn]

[SP]

With my very best forthcoming attempt I still cannot understand Herman's
statement other than to say that since he believes his actions are
acceptable, they must be acceptable.

[DALB]

No, not quite. What Herman is doing is leaving out words (just as the words
"on hearing the explanation" have been left out of Law 20F5 between "nor may
he" and "indicate in any manner", but it is obvious that they ought to be
there).

What he says is: "Since I believe my actions are acceptable, [I believe]
they must be acceptable regardless of whether they are better for my side or
not."

Either that, or he is perpetrating an argument of this kind:

"Santa Claus exists, if I am not mistaken."
"Well, of course Santa Claus exists *if you are not mistaken*."
"So I am not mistaken, since what I say is true, therefore Santa Claus
exists."

Incidentally, what does [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] mean, and why does it appear in so
many of these messages?

David Burn
London, England