Unknown magic sites in starting provinces?

[Taqwus]

NTJedi --
Neither example you give supports your case. T'is the _nonexistence of the issue in question_ that is known, not the item itself.
For instance, with the known nonexistence of a principal case, both parties know that the principal does not exist; neither knows the principal. You're confusing objects and properties of objects.

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by Taqwus:
NTJedi --
Neither example you give supports your case. T'is the _nonexistence of the issue in question_ that is known, not the item itself.
For instance, with the known nonexistence of a principal case, both parties know that the principal does not exist; neither knows the principal. You're confusing objects and properties of objects.

Supreme Court Document :
KNOW THE PRINCIPAL TO BE NONEXISTENT
object: "the principal"

The object is known as nonexistent


The Magnanimous Cuckold (comedy)
Author: Fernand Crommelynck
http://newmedia.cgu.edu/stageart/holland/summc.html

Once his jealously has been aroused, Bruno, pursuing an insane logic of his own, cannot rest until he has put all doubts to an end by absolute certainty. He therefore compels the suffering Stella to sleep first with Petrus and then with all the men in the village as he pursues the phantom of an unknown and nonexistent lover.


University of Mississippi
http://home.olemiss.edu/~weiming/654p.htm

“As to the nonexistent value, it is just the negative value of unknown value, since in fact it is known to be nonexistent. The predicate expression……”

The value known to be nonexistent

The copper mine known to be nonexistent


=======

And I have yet to see any proof showing I am wrong... besides opinions.

[ March 21, 2004, 18:37: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

[Taqwus]

NTJedi --
Playwrights aren't exactly reliable citations when it comes to logic. Shall we resort to Gilbert and Sullivan for a serious discussion of piracy or Japanese history? Does Shakespeare serve as an authority on Midsummer rites and faeries? No.
As for your database example, do you know what a 'null' field in a database table refers to, and why you might have one? Have you studied relational databases, actually? Implemented one yet? If so, you might know why it has no bearing on your claims.

[NTJedi]

The prehistoric plants example is one of the best examples since during the present they are nonexistent yet depending on the specimen can be both known or unknown. The copper mine is very much the same except that it qualifies as being in the future and not the past.


More Court Documentation:

http://www.harp.org/wheeler.txt

"..Not only is the resisting party (presumably the
patient) claiming lack of knowledge of the arbitration term, but he asks not to be prevented from litigating a consequential loss controversy that was also unknown and nonexistent at the time of contracting. Viewed in this light, the knowledge factor is ....."


http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/cc...ions/74185.htm

As Judge Miller explained in his concurring opinion in Ex parte Carillo, 687 S.W.2d 320, 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985):

Parole is very much a speculative proposition. Its happening is contingent on many factors unknown and nonexistent at the time of a guilty plea.


There are hundreds of quotes using known and unknown with nonexistent.

And I have yet to see any proof showing I am wrong... besides opinions.

[ March 21, 2004, 18:48: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Despite all this actual physical proof I seriously believe PeterEbbesen or Graeme Dice lack the honor to apologize for being wrong and rude.

I don't apologize to idiots who refuse to admit that they are wrong.

“1] PRINCIPAL AND AGENT - LIABILITY OF AGENT TO THIRD PERSON -CONTRACTS IN NAME OF PRINCIPAL - NONEXISTENT PRINCIPAL. Where an agent for a nonexistent principal enters into a contract in the name of such principal, and all parties to the contract know the principal to be nonexistent,……. “

This is not regarding a physical object, and so couldn't prove your point even if the words said what you think they do. This is merely a case where you have a non-existent entity that everyone agrees is non-existent. Thus it's non-existence is known. The above is a question of whether the object is known to be non-existent. Not whether the object is non-existent or not.

“If President Bush "touted 100,000 jobs more logging on federal lands could bring to the Northwest" that are now known to be nonexistent……”

Yes, the jobs do not exist, and there is information on their non-existence, so people can agree that they do not exist.

This is in complete contrast to your claim, where there is no information on whether the copper mine exists, and in fact, according to yor examples above, the only thing you could say is that it is known to be non-existent.

At the start of the game the programmer would know the copper mine to be nonexistent. The copper mine however would remain unknown and nonexistent to all other players.

The copper mine does not exist until the random event causes it to exist. The programmer does not have the knowledge to tell you whether the copper mine will exist at some point in the future. Thus there is no way to say that the mine is "unknown". It simply doesn't exist.

The prehistoric plants example is one of the best examples since during the present they are nonexistent yet depending on the specimen can be both known or unknown. The copper mine is very much the same except that it qualifies as being in the future and not the past.

Once again you are dodging the point. There is no information whatsoever about prehistoric plants that have no evidence of their existence. You are claiming that something which is _known_ to be non-existent, such as a copper mine before the event creates it, is actually unknown. You're trying to claim that adding the word unknown is useful, when it instead adds no information whatsoever.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
More Court Documentation:

You will let me know when court cases bear any resemblance to the existence of objects in the physical world?

"..Not only is the resisting party (presumably the
patient) claiming lack of knowledge of the arbitration term, but he asks not to be prevented from litigating a consequential loss controversy that was also unknown and nonexistent at the time of contracting. Viewed in this light, the knowledge factor is ....."

Once again, that's an idea, not an object. Try and find some relevant examples.

There are hundreds of quotes using known and unknown with nonexistent.

And I have yet to see any proof showing I am wrong... besides opinions.

There might be hundreds of quotes, but not one of them will be relevant to the question at hand. You haven't seen any "proof", because no such "proof" is needed. The answer to the question is obvious to all but your deluded mind.

[NTJedi]

Graeme Dice
besides your weak opinion what actual proof have you provided ZERO.


The prehistoric plants example is one of the best examples since during the present they are nonexistent yet depending on the specimen can be both known or unknown. The copper mine is very much the same except that it qualifies as being in the future and not the past.


Also the fact that these phrases are used in court documentation shows the phrase is correct and I am right. I have given actual proof in many different ways showing things which are nonexistent can be either known or unknown.

[ March 21, 2004, 18:54: Message edited by: NTJedi ]