Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition Explo

Craig Daniel on Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:00:23 -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: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:00:00 -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; bh=HjSElW9LELYbCf5ucFwFdvYaB7o42AsluHHlZWR5Mk0=; b=tgl+yEVd7XFH9sX3GqSa507JC+yA3QOcis/2iYY3trCjiWZXiubeQ46PF9iFkCq23S cnJL0lyMNi95f3xsoMcHIpfZtB/75j9UsoHUZemz9/C9QbSyzsVxR5ajdF03naMz6FO/ 5/90hc+zL9WQecC9Y9DCzv2TJUqo/hmCImOYQ=
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; b=HFyycv1o6PJXE54H2389tvXuJjB9y0UbdFLNdg2VokEtZZXa+uBnffyiYjsPVI0JGU StEdF5gmHXSKMO3EFDCuw/dlgZZoZjea5R/sA1fOL+YsSDVFPXkQeZahcO+2NhJW3+Y9 DhtQvAc6x/impneqjc7i4DmReGwAau5Z2+/fY=
In-reply-to: <ed4b3fb80911021225t6d980947x6511de884776bc5b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <dc05cc2c0911010914n4072d3fbt75b88d096e97c213@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <653283240911011936k22898b3esd0a4fa8abeb0d4fc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <dc05cc2c0911021220q6e33407flb20191a990d1529@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <ed4b3fb80911021225t6d980947x6511de884776bc5b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Sean Hunt <rideau3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Charles Walker
> <charles.w.walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 2009/11/2 Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> I publish an NoV alleging that Walker violated Rule 81, a Power-1
>>> rule, by falsely making a public statement that CftPoPDE is a
>>> corporation.
>>
>> I contest this.
>
> I register. I initiate a criminal case from this NoV. I sit up. I set

Gratuitous: B Nomic does not have a history of ignoring the
use-mention distinction. In informing B that e had agreed to be bound
by a contract (something B doesn't really care about anymore but which
Walker is allowed to do) and in posting the text of said contract to
the PF, Walker did not also endorse factual claims made in that
contract - e merely reported what claims it contained.

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

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Add reports to MoM report
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition Exploration (PftPoPDE)
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition Exploration (PftPoPDE)
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition Exploration (PftPoPDE)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread