On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > [It's often bothered me that R101 could be gotten around by redefining > > "person" (for example via R2150). > > This is only a problem now that Rule 2150 is Power 3...
Well, if the "common dictionary" definition of person was used in R101 over a lower-powered R2150, that still leaves open whether partnerships were such persons by "common definition"; the old precedent that started partnerships in 2007 says they are. -G.
