On Apr 23, 2011, at 1:50 AM, Eric Stucky <turiski.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> quite extensive argument Nice job on that, but: - Persons don't have power 2; only the rules that define them as persons do. - If anything, ehird's "content" takes the form of a large bundle of cells and water; eir written communication is a small part of eir existence. - E does not have the capacity to govern the game generally. Rules might not govern the entire game but (except for specific restrictions made by higher power rules) if they "wanted to" (specified so), they could; ehird could not. Anyway, I think it's all for nought, because, in the context of the rest of the ruleset, the definition you cite is clearly not intensional; it's one of many that imply "Xs are imaginary entities whose existence is tracked as part of the gamestate".
