On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:09 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Therefore, there is no recordkeepor of > > public contracts (the phrase itself is an oxymoron), and therefore I > > judge FALSE. > > I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support. If being a > recordkeepor for information is not defined, then it is equivalent to > being a recordkeeper for it. No Agoran rule attempts to define the > term "recordkeepor". >
I support this. Additional arguments: The judgment makes a distinction between being a "recordkeepor of information (about X)" and "recordkeepor of X". There is no such distinction, since records are inherently information. -woggle
