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

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Jeff Gitchel <gitchel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I still don't see it. If I sign a message with my name, and you sign one with yours, it's pretty easy to puzzle out the difference. My
> name is still effectively unique.

We can refer to you unambiguously, but not by only specifying a single
name in a context that doesn't differentiate.

> I'm the 'Gitchel, The One and Only Respected One' who only has one name, and had it before you tried (and I still think failed) to
> give yourself a non-unique name.

I cannot see any way that I failed.

> Perhaps this would make more sense if you had changed your name to 'Gitchel, The One and Only Respected One' instead of
> that collection of names. Though I'm still thinking that your attempt to do something against the rules makes the attempt fail and
> the ambiguity not happen.

I did not attempt to do anything against the rules. For two reasons:
one, as far as I can tell, non-players are not capable of breaking the
rules, or of meaningfully attempting to do so. Two, I'm not the one
who lacks a non-unique name; that's a requirement that you aren't
fulfilling at present.

As for that making it fail? The rules are quite clear that illegal and
impossible are not the same thing.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss