| Jeff Gitchel on Sun, 25 Jul 2010 01:25:14 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Let's have fun with timing, shall we? |
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. 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. The fact that you attempt this infraction rapidly does not make it allowable. 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. Gitchel, The One and Only Respected One _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss