Ideosphere Forum

RE: Revision of proposal: 'TWAC'

Author: Vicki Rosenzweig
Conversation: Proposal: 'TWAC' ( prev | next ) reply!
Topic: fx-propose ( prev | next )
Date: Thu Aug 01, 1996 12:42 pm
FX
Vicki Rosenzweig
Carlos Munoz




I'd like to suggest a slight rephrasing for clarity. (I don't think this
changes the meaning):

'Long: This claim will be judged "YES" if final reports say that
the crash of TWA Flight 800 was caused by a bomb exploding
on the plane. It will be judged "NO" if final reports say the
crash was caused by anything else.'

As I read the proposed wording (and my own suggested wording
reflects this interpretation), a bomb is a yes; a missile, mechanical
failure, meteor, or act of deity is a no; and no judgment can be given
until the appropriate agency has made a final statement. (Most of
the coverage of the crash has used "bomb" to mean "explosive
planted on the plane," as distinct from a missile.) It might be
worth making explicit that this claim can't be judged until the agency
involved (I think it's the National Transportation Safety Board) has
issued a final report on the crash. Alternately, if the intent is to judge
the claim NO if, after a given amount of time, the NTSB decides it
can't tell what caused the crash, that should be made explicit in the
claim.

Vicki
rosenzweig@acm.org
----------

The creator of claim 'TWAC' has made the following changes to its proposal.
If you have constructive suggestions, please follow-up to this message.
Thank you.

Results of editing claim 'TWAC':
'long' changed to:
TRUE = Final Reports says that a bomb on the plane blew up
'short' changed to: Bomb Blew Up TWA Flt 800

source



All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL