Re: [s-d] [s-b] Multiple names, part two.

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Jeff Gitchel <gitchel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 25/07/2010, at 11:12, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Names are not titles. Titles are not names.
>>
>> False, see Rule 60.
>
>
> Titles are names on their way to being titles. A name is not a title until then, and ceases being a name when it becomes a title.
>
> Nothing is a name and title simultaneously.

No, titles are names defined as being titles by the rules. Ergo, all
titles are names, but not all names are titles. In fact the only name
which is a title, currently, is "Respected One."

> Except, of course mine. It changes state at my will.
>
> Of course, I'd have to admit I don't have the points to support it as a title, so it's currently a name.

Only the name "Respected One" (which is always a title, since the
rules define it to be a title) goes away with too little Respect.
"Gitchel, The One and Only Respected One" is distinct from it, so you
still have it.

> But it isn't a title and name both.

Agreed. It's a name that isn't also a title.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss