On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You have said in your judgment that if the *entity itself* defines itself > as P, despite external evidence to the contrary, then it is in fact in > class A, and the only way it is not in A is if the rules apply a > punishment for not being A. Now that this judgement is in, we merely take > it to its logical conclusion.
This has nothing to do with what a contract says. Obligations are managed by the Rules and need not correspond to what we would call an ordinary-language obligation, any more than a Land must be a part of planet Earth or a Crop edible. Partnerships do devolve "legal obligations" (R2145) on themselves into legal obligations on their members; that the Rules *expressly* make these obligations unpunishable and therefore not really ordinary-language obligations is unimportant. If the Rules, for example, said that a biological person is a person who has passed a Turing test, then I would entirely agree with an attempt to register Elbot [1]; as it stands, the Rules do not explicitly define the term, so we are left to the standards of evidence. [1] http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4934858.ece
