Kerim Aydin wrote: >For all *practical* purposes you can "be" BobTHJ in terms of satisfying eir >duties, but you can't take the final leap and actually *be* BobTHJ in terms of >assuming all of eir guaranteed R101 (or other natural, inalienable) rights.
I envisioned it as working like executorship used to. We didn't have metaphysical problems there (or, at least, not so much that they got in the way). > I accept that this is R2160 POSSIBLE even >though you haven't done it, and you might not be able to The counterfactual situation itself doesn't have to be POSSIBLE in this sense; that's what a counterfactual is about. It just has to be conceivable. The "POSSIBLE" clause is only evaluated within the counterfactual context, where I *did* do it. >Actually, hmm, that's a good point. If you were in the above 'position', >wouldn't it require *your* deregistration to satisfy the terms of the >contract? Er, yes, but I'm not in that position, BobTHJ is. -zefram
