On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:57 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 09:37 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> Oh, so you're interpreting R2150 as "must include". Again, though, this
> >> is trivially satisfied by your theoretical ability to hire one or more
> >> sufficiently competent human translators.
> >
> > Is a theoretical ability enough, though? For instance, I'm not certain
> > that I could afford to hire a competent translator for enough time to
> > meaningfully participate in Agora. I agree that I probably am, indeed, a
> > person; I just thought this would serve as a good subject for a random
> > stray CFJ (which apparently doesn't exist, despite the intent being
> > clear enough?)
>
> It was reasonably clear that you intended to initiate a case, but the
> details were considerably less clear; presumably an inquiry case on
> "I am a person", but the Yoda-esque alteration of word order and
> especially "conviction" muddy the waters.
Yep. The fact that one of the quote marks somehow got lost confuses me,
by the way; I'm rather surprised that the translator didn't at least
manage to preserve that.
--
ais523
