Jay Campbell on Sun, 4 Jan 2009 22:38:27 -0700 (MST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: ehird's macks
That's the crux of the matter. Macks may be owned by "A Legal Entity, or Nobody" except further down it says they may only be owned by a Legal Entity. This, somehow, according to ehird, leaves us in a state of paradox where we're all immortal slaves to B Nomic because no one's allowed to quit playing. 





Tyler wrote:

Ah, then is Nobody defined by the Rules? I missed that somehow.

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Elliott Hird <
penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On 4 Jan 2009, at 10:37, Tyler wrote:

As priest for this Consultation, (I hope I'm not too late,) I Answer it

TRUE. Reasoning:


I agree with the judgment but not the reasoning. Nobody is just an abstract
value defined by the rules. It could as well have been called Chewbacca.
   In fact, it _should_ have been called Chewbacca.


_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss