|
Craig Daniel on Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:42:12 -0700 (MST)
|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition Exploration (PftPoPDE)
|
- To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition Exploration (PftPoPDE)
- From: Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:42:08 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iuFjB7mLhLW9YJeFXDvhQr5nDuGeBFuP9aewsr9OdMM=; b=c135GoTCFHZJS/bCjGkM9vavG1aqqdV9Dwth7er7ADHTDM1007luXjqqy0HHdyqEYM Qlo7YEiTTQwmhL3nIF2O54++1hpzFTFkkH4iy8+7552Nnsp2qGZeh37F+HojBO/71Eel bbn/9hm0zj9PlCR9KN5YfwWjjMNPoHrXNBsao=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=YAQpY7O3Y/O9V4ePhM1LBweBvkwxbXMueARpk9FhTZ3UFg4DtBSFD8nqwmCT+oWWQR Y1IMl2wyPf5pqV2vRIBwaBbv+JHmcjR6DW3VW9sxPD4lbHe4Hqo8mkXTdIMg5C47CiSH DOWcQ9MKMJRwCIniz7I3aDLM6I/NM30NVTJvU=
- In-reply-to: <653283240911011936k22898b3esd0a4fa8abeb0d4fc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <dc05cc2c0911010914n4072d3fbt75b88d096e97c213@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <653283240911011936k22898b3esd0a4fa8abeb0d4fc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gratuitous arguments:
>
> Since B's rules neither define nor regulate contracts, Walker
> certainly may, as an unregulated action, agree to contracts; this is
> eir R1 right. Since the rules place no significance on contracts, eir
> assertion should be taken to have its ordinary language meaning, that
> is, e's agreeing a be bound by a contract under the laws in eir own
> jurisdiction. Since the law in the UK requires government sanctioning
> for a document to define a corporation, and since it seems reasonably
> unlikely that Walker has such government sanctioning in this case,
> Walker hasn't created a person either in the ordinary language sense
> or in the legal sense.
>
Question: is Walker in the UK?
Because, if so, I am inclined to accept the above gratuitous arguments.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss