On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, omd wrote: > Well, with no hard feelings, I intend, with two support, to appeal > this judgement. ;p
None at all :) > Or else you're just > turning "can act on behalf of X to perform actions" into "can send > messages on behalf of X to attempt to perform actions", which I think > is not precedented and too vaguely defined. Interestingly, the reason this judgement was delayed was because I intended to go on a long research journey in the archives in terms of general problems we've had with the language of executorship: whether 'I act on behalf of the Golem to do X' was the same as 'The golem posts the message "I do X."' I vaguely remember one case/issue at least (I think Steve was involved, that's all I really remember) where the conclusion was "we need to infer that the announcement mechanism generally exists for persons we are acting on behalf of, and that when we act on behalf of them, it's an announcement from them". But then I got busy with other things, so never went and looked... :) -G.
