On Dec 3, 2007 10:54 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yet you are ignoring the fact that it was clearly used as an action
> within its context. I even confirmed this by having Agora perform said
> action, which you yourself supported (albiet conditionally). This is
> seriously opposed to the permitted unless regulated concept. Just
> becuase Agora does not understand what an action is, does that mean it
> should not be allowed to be performed?
I supported it thinking it might lead to a nice CFJ. It is my opinion
that if Agora does not understand what an action is, it is not an
action in Agora, which means that the dependent action and its notice
of intent were invalid (note the condition of my conditional support).
> Also, R101 does not come into play here. Weather or not you are bound
> by Fookiemyartug has little effect on this outcome. Fookiemyartug is
> not imposing any obligations upon you which you Agoran rights would
> prevent.
Good point. Perhaps R101(v) does not apply here, but I still maintain
that R101(iv) does:
iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to
a binding agreement. The absence of a person's explicit,
willful consent shall be considered a refusal.
-root
