On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Oh I see, you're accepting that CAN works to limit doing things through >> mechanism, but not SHALL. Sorry, I thought you were arguing in the "I'm >> privileged to do anything so I CAN do anything just by saying that I do it" >> camp. > > Oh, absolutely. I wrote the ruling that established that R101(i) > doesn't give anyone the ability to perform actions the rest of the > ruleset says are impossible. However, despite the horrendous grammar, > I think the existence of a privilege to do what one will (even one > granted to all persons, which is fairly silly since that's basically > the opposite of what a "private law" is supposed to be) must have some > kind of effect.
It might not have any kind of effect. It was a direct replacement for "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and unregulated". In an email game, this is pretty much a tautology as long as the courts or rules defend a reasonable definition of "unregulated". -Goethe
