On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: > Contradicts Phill precedent.
How? The signature clearly claimed emself to be ais523, not another person. E then said e might have been the Herald. That doesn't mean e claimed to be the person that happened to hold the office, that means e claimed that e, ais523, held (or might have held) the office. If I say "I am the CotC. -G." I'm saying "I, G., am the CotC instead of Murphy". I'm *not* saying "I am the CotC; the CotC is Murphy; therefore I am Murphy." That would be the most commonsense and reasonable way to read said claim. Also, see CFJ1895 on whether the second interpretation is possible, even as a legal fiction. -G.
