self-topic

this is the first phrase of the first post of the thread. This is the second and last one.

This topic has an odd number of replies. Last sentence will be false soon.

This is not the first phrase of the first post of this thread. Note that all future posts will contain the word 'not'.

It is not allowed to make a previous post false, unless temporarly.

What the heck are you guys talking about?

lol, I broke the rules by making the third post false. Sorry about that. But seriously, what are you guys talking about?

P.S. Not

Yeah, I think that this means they have to start a new thread :-/ and that you're the loser and you get docked 10 ratings points or something.

I do NOT know where Gregorio got the idea but it seems something along the lines of articles of Hofstadter in his column Metamagical Themes (a anagram of Mathematical Games) he had in the scientific american about self-reference. "This topic is about selfreferential sentences, like this sentense" is a selfreferential sentence.

Philosophical this possibility in language to self refer makes paradoxes like the liar-paradox possible, while even mathematical the possibility to translate the sentence 'this theorem is not provable' in arithmetics is the crux of the 1931 proof of Godel that each system of symbols is either of the next three: 1) to weak to say something about natural numbers, 2) inconsistent (containing falsehoods) or 3) incomplete which means it contains (an infinite number of) sentences that are true but not provable.

Actually based on Hofstadters columns the game of Nomica got famous, well it got played by some people and one offspin of that game is the game I am trying to set up here as answer to Gregorio. FRC (Fantansy Rules Commitee) if a game where each post is considered a rule and posting a rule that makes the rules in total inconsistent is actually an illegal move.

wccanard did not follow the rules as well and is docked also 10 rating points.

Some replies in this topics are self-referential, and some are not, but this one actually IS. Last sentence and this one are true, or maybe not.

With this single phrase, the poster wants to say Hjallti he is right about the origins about Gregorio's idea.

As most of phrases in this topic, this one is self-referential, and such should be all phrases from now on.

However opposite to most of the posts in this is topic (including this one) the previous post as I see it now does not contain the word 'not'.

This post doesn't contain either the previously mentioned famous word but it will in the future.

This post is meant to indicate that the poster does not has any ability to change posts on this site and is surprized, to say the least that the previous post seems to incline that its poster would be able. My poster, Hjallti, is getting confused about who is to be used as the 'I' in this sentence, and furthermore he also thinks that it would be boring to tell that Gregorio and ypercube did loose 10 rating points, somehow since he doesn't have a clue where the points came from in the first place.

Another post that thinks that the previous post is false and thus opposite to itself, making Hjallti a 10 points looser, at least temporarily.

This posts in states the

The-name-of-the-poster-NEXT-to-the-post-itself-is-NOT-part-of-the-post-rule, and also remarks for futher reference that the poster most of the time known as ypercube has named himself 'not ypercube', finding a nice way to get the not word in.

ypercube is not the poster of this post. The poster of this post is not ypercube. The two previous sentences are true but not equivalent. Or are they equivalent? And are they true?

All Englishmen are liars.

I'm not!

Fatphil and Rororo the bot will NOT post in this thread again. If Fatphil or his pet robot do post in this thread again, he will prove his statement correct but break the rules by making this post false.

Hehe, as an afterthought. This thread will not be posted to again. The poster of the last post in this thread will be declared the winner and worsipped as a god by all LG players. Anyone making this post false will be immediately disqualified and their post will not be counted toward the last post rule set forth here-in.

There isn't a set number for stats at each growth level. Instead, you are given Skill docked also 10 Rating Points to add to your pilot's attributes in any way you wish. You will be notified each time you advance in growth level so you can apply your points; you may also opt to follow the rules as well apply them for you.. New chapters will be posted here, and there is also a place to get your LGâ??s approved. Participating in a chapter requires that you be able to follow the flow of posts made before yours; if you step out of sync with the rest of the participants you may be asked to leave the chapter thread.

After answering several serious, â??â??knowledge-worthyâ?â? questions, itâ??â??s great to unwind and have some fun. Please put â??â??FUNâ?â? back in YA.

This is not a post.

|

Subtility is a great asset in this game, as winning the 'rough' way is not really a merit. The poster of the previous sentence was reluctant (or as he believes himself to subtle) to say bluntly he believes that Robert Irvin is a fun-spoiler. Therefor the second post of Robert may be disregarded alltogether in the future posts of this topic.

By the way... I don't know for sure but if you take the overall standings of the win condition in the General Forum I think I am pretty close to be first.

Forget Robert's indiscretions. I'm abusing the rules so badly *all* my posts to this thread _must_ be disregarded!

You obviously understand the rules better than I do, Hjallti. I Was not trying to spoil anyone's fun. I see now that my last post wasn't self-referential. I don't believe Waxman was in any way implying that I was a fun-spoiler, he was merely trying to point out the flaw in my strategy. Please, let me try again.

This post is Robert's third attempt at a legal post to this forum; it is not intended to spoil anyone's enjoyment of the game.

That better?

This post is intented to ask any poster NOT to think I take this serious at all, and moreover to consider this conversation not as a game either. Therefor it would utterly misdirecting to add another rule since we have already 3, which in a game of FRC would mean we are only started.

Therefor this post should be disregarded in the rest of this topic and may not be referred to in anyway any later, even not to claim that another post would be illegal because of this post.

See, Robert, I can make up rules I don't understand myself!

I was afraid my last rule would be to hard... Not one reaction since...

The last word in this posting might be unnecessary.

This post points out that the last post did not contain the word not, which was necessary.

I will try not to mention 'not' in this post.

I failed.

I do not want any one to bump this topic: it is almost on the second page and that is very good!

I do not want anyone to find this topic before june 25th 2013 for obvious reasons

FRC at the moment

https://sites.google.com/site/fantasyrulescommittee/regular-ordinances-of-the-frc