On Fri, 26 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > 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?
Hmm, I wonder if the whole thing just simply triggers the self-contradictory clause, i.e. it's self-contradictory for a ratification to ratify that a non-person published a message, because it is impossible for non-persons to originate messages as primal causal agents (CFJ 1895). -Goethe
