On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> I appreciate that; I apologize and withdraw my pledge on the matter.
>
> Thank you. Now let's get back to arguing about the case. :)
This isn't an argument, it's just contradictions :) ("No it isn't")
Proto: "The new name of Agora will be "Argument Clinic").
> --> Rule 105 would allow me to cause R2105 to create a new rule
> because it would be permitted by Contract A.
> - So Rule 1728 authorizes me to cause R2105 to create the new rule.
> - Rule 2105 is an instrument, so that's okay. "Where permitted by
> other rules" is satisfied because Rule 1728 is permitting it.
Good argument.
My first instinct is that if any part of the authorization chain that
contains a "permitted by" or other allowing mechanism falls down to
power-0, the chain is broken. But that's a first (or by now second)
instinct. Deciding if the instinct is supported against your careful
argument would make my Head Hurt and require some deep decisions or
new precedents on what delegation is implied or possible by "permitted
by". So I'll undertake Head Hurting iff I judge this.
-G.
