On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote: >> 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.
If someone didn't publish a Report, you put yourself 'in the position' and publish the report yourself. If someone didn't deregister as required, you put yourself 'in the position' and deregister yourself. The other version: If someone didn't publish a Report, you put yourself in the position and publish the report yourself. If someone didn't deregister as required, you put yourself in the position and deregister *that someone*. See the asymmetry of the second version? I previously (and you) argued for this second version, but on considering the issue of personhood I'm wondering if the first isn't (as Douglas Hofstadter might put it) a more "natural slippage" of delegated roles? To put it another way, when you deputize yourself to publish the Report, we very specifically *don't* create the legal fiction that the other person published the report. So why would we create the legal fiction that the other person deregistered? (That's an honest question seeking an answer, not a rhetorical one). [Note that in this case, since you clearly attempted to deregister BobTHJ, it would just make the whole thing unsuccessful---it wouldn't mean that you succeeded in deregsitering yourself, to do that you'd have to clearly and purposefully fall on your own sword]. -Goethe
