spoon-business: RFJ: reflexivity of "to be"

[Benjamin Bradley <activist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I request judgement on the following statements regarding Rule 105/0:

STATEMENT 1:
The english verb "to be" is considered reflexive [ie 'x is y.' implies 'y
is x.']. 

{{as a side note, this problem would never happen in spanish, since
there are two different verbs for "to be", one of which indicates a
(permanent) characteristic and the other indicates a (temporary) state}}

STATEMENT 2:
The statement "An Agent is an entity capable of action." 
implies that "an entity capable of action is an Agent."

---
Rule 105/0 : Agents 
       An Agent is an entity capable of action. The status of entities as
Agents may be altered only as specified in the rules. An entity
       may cause emself to lose eir Agency, but may not, solely on eir own
authority become an Agent.



- You have received mail from Benjamin Bradley. meh.
- http://lostpoet.tripod.com/
- whee life what a rush