Ed Murphy wrote: >Based on information known to pikhq at the time, and without resorting >to retroactivity, WALRUS was a person and a player at time T1.
That doesn't follow. pikhq know WALRUS to be a person, but (according to my argument) e failed to make a suitable announcement in order to register it as a player. >believe otherwise is tantamount to believing that pikhq would have >deliberately attempted a questionable registration pikhq made an unsuitable announcement out of ineptness, I don't think it was deliberate. E mistakenly made a public message that relied on a term that was only defined privately. Similarly, eir next attempt at CFJs and proposals relied on an ill-constructed counterfactual. That too was due to ineptness in formulating the message, not an attempt to test the legal status of such an ambiguous construction. >"the CFJs that it would have submitted if it were a player before this >message" is equivalent to "the CFJs that it would have submitted if it >were a player since time T1". I don't think that's the clear interpretation, but in any case that interpretation doesn't help, because CFJ submission doesn't depend on playerhood. -zefram
