| Craig Daniel on Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:52:45 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Assignments of Consultations 179-187 |
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Whether they're destroyed or not, there definitely is a rules basis for >> them no longer being owned by you if they exist. >> > > 5E2 "All Ownable Game Objects have an Owner, which is either a Legal Entity > or Nobody. Game Objects are said to be "in possession of" their Owner." > > 5E29 "Only Legal Entities can own mackerel." > > To "own" an object is not defined in the rules. If it were, only Legal > Entities could do it to mackeral. > > Macks are, however, "in the possession of" either a Legal Entity or Nobody. > > Since the Legal Entity ehird does not exist, the macks must be "in the > possession of" Nobody, although this does not mean that Nobody "owns" the > macks. > > CONSISTENT. Of course, CONSISTENT means they don't exist, and thus aren't in the possession of Nobody. So your argument and your reasoning are mutually contradictory. (I don't think this should be a Paradox, but I do think judging it as Charles did is silly.) _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss