On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Warrigal's argument is similar to this: > > Define Buckingham Palace to be a Frobozz Magic Exculpator if and only if > it is not owned by the Queen of England. > > Then, Buckingham Palace is an asset if the Queen doesn't own it (because > there's no real-language meaning for a Frobozz Magic Exculpator), but > isn't if it is (because there is a real-language meaning for Buckingham > Palace).
I agree that this is likely how e *intended* it to work. -root
