On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 20:06 +0100, Charles Walker wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> > wrote: > > coppro wrote: > > > Alex Smith wrote: > >> On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 23:55 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > >>>> 6310 D 1 2.0 coppro Maple Leaf Dominance > >>> PRESENT (I will inform Prime Minster Stephen Harper at > p...@pm.gc.ca > >>> if this passes; neither Queen Elizabeth II nor Governor > General > >>> Michaëlle Jean appears to be reachable by e-mail) > >> Queen Elizabeth II is known to have an email address; > unfortunately, it > >> is not generally known what it is. (I also suspect it's > likely to be > >> send-only.) > >> > > Unfortunately, that proposal won't work as has been pointed > out. Please > > vote AGAINST and vote FOR the corrected version next week. > > > Ah, right, it would create a rule not powerful enough to > define a > person. I retract my vote on it and vote AGAINST instead. > > > Ditto. Why is defining a person secured?
To prevent an escalation from low to high power by defining a huge number of people, and using them to invade the game. (I'm not entirely sure if that's possible, but quite likely there'd be some way in the absence of that.) -- ais523
