On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I think this is like the "decrease by -1" scam. Any programming language with a 'decrease' method would allow you to decrease by -1 in order to increase by 1; but that is (arguably; I still disagree :) not standard usage. Similarly any programming language would allow a 'transfer' verb to transfer something from <null> to an entity, but that is not standard usage of the term.
