ais523 wrote: > 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.)
An extra safeguard in case Support Democracy ever breaks, I think.
