On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It can't, but go back and read what I wrote earlier; there is another > interpretation of transference that you haven't addressed.
I don't see the distinction. You seem to be arguing that "being in the ownership of <null>" and "being in the state of non-ownership" are two distinct things. They're not. -root
