Re: [s-d] [s-b] Registration, consultation, proposal

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Goethe, if you disagree with the ruling, you could always submit an official
claim as to the answer's consistency with established doctrine...

Billy Pilgrim

On Nov 22, 2007 8:43 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> > The fact that the AFO is acting on behalf of its agents is irrelevant.
> > That the AFO acts in the legislated way, I think, is undisputable.
> > When the AFO is actually sending the email, it is its agents that
> > (like the mail routers) are going between itself and the non-agents.
>
> That's a nice legal fiction you've got there.  The "AFO" doesn't send
> anything.  It's agents agree to, and one of it's agents does. Calling
> it "from the AFO" is a way of avoiding personal responsibility for the
> agents... which may or may not be legal (its legal for U.S. corporations,
> for example).  But shouldn't be mistaken for the "real thing."  All the
> other membership tests require the "real thing" (e.g. no group minds,
> proof of individuality) so its surprising that this consultation let
> the email requirement slide through on this fiction, when its the agents,
> not the AFO, that *originate* the sending and *terminate* the receiving.
>
> -Goethe
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss