On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, I'm coming to think, it actually *does* ratify the existence of a > separate (fake) person.
By what of the "no avatars" clause of R2170? Do we just ignore an unambiguous part because an ambiguous bit of the same rule may or may not contradict it?
