Re: [s-d] [s-b] Let's have fun with timing, shall we?

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Jeff Gitchel <gitchel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 24/07/2010, at 18:01, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> A recent proposal attempted to put my name back to what it was prior
>> to the point where I stopped having one, but it didn't give me the
>> name I most recently intended to give myself. I'm therefore currently
>> named Rule 700. So to fix this tragic oversight, I change my name to
>> "Respected One."
>>
>
>
> My name is 'Gitchel, The One and Only Respected One'
>
> If your name becomes 'Respected One' then I believe the two names are not unique enough the differentiate between us, therefore
> violating Rule 2.

They are very obviously distinct strings. And not in a confusing way
the way it would be if I named myself some string of hex very closely
resembling ais523's, or perhaps "Codae "; they are distinguishable at
a glance.

Besides, when we're talking about strings of up to 255 characters, I'd
be inclined to interpret "unique" in a more precise way, such that if
I wished to be named "Codae " I would be permitted to do so. This part
seems entirely debatable, however, and I wouldn't try it unless I was
planning to initiate a CFI over the matter.

> If I am the One and Only Respected One, and someone reads a missive from The Respected One then it is probable that they may
> confuse the author of the post, effectively stealing my identity. This is exactly against the letter and intent of Rule 2.

I'm pretty sure the difference between "Respected One" and "Gitchel,
The One And Only Respected One" is non-trivial.

> The fact that you attempt this infraction rapidly does not make it allowable.

Agreed. The fact that it is not an infraction at all, however...

> I'm not sure how necessary it is to the chain of events you've proposed to follow it, but that step in particular cannot take place.

It's not necessary for the question of whether simultaneously-posted
name changes are simultaneous or sequential, but the fact that there
is no time for the name Respected One to do its disappearing act is
relevant to my argument for simultaneity - though it would still
equally potent as an argument if it were hypothetical. Which it's not.

 - (I'm not actually sure what to sign here but probably teucer)
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss