Kerim Aydin wrote: >> So, your post is a nullity in terms of further legal effect. In >> the real world, you have sent an e-mail, but you remain a person. >> Any CFJ claiming that Goethe is a pineapple will be answered FALSE.
>> What's your answer? > Nice lead in to my final point! This isn't the real world. > Specifically... > In the real world, the "right" to do something doesn't mean the "power" > to do something. You can be granted the right to free speech, but > that doesn't grant you the power to right a bestselling novel. > However, in Agora, the right and the power are inseparable; the > right to perform an action by message is inseparable from the > granting of that message a legal effect. I don't believe this. Moreover, I believe it leads to ridiculous consequences, see below. > Let's say we interpreted "you have the right to do what thou wilt" > as "you have the right to do it, but it's meaningless." I would > say that this interpretation is a mockery of a granted right to > perform an action. > And that such a mockery of interpretation would certainly "abridge, > reduce, limit or remove" the right. This is explicitly forbidden > by the first sentence in the highest-powered Rule in the game. By this reasoning, I have the right to change the rules at whim. When I post to the PF and say that the rules now read the way I want to them, and you deny me, I point to your paragraphs above. Nor is the fact that other rules regulate rule changes relevant, for 101 trumps them. What is the difference between changing rules, and changing "deemings"? Michael.
