On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Still, I believe that the Promotor CANNOT distribute the proposal in >> question, and the message's claim to have been published by "invalid >> invalid" (who is not a player) will self-ratify, meaning the proposal >> was never legal. > > Only if the author denies my CoE. Besides which, I don't think the > "invalid invalid" should be taken as a claim of identity, given that > the message clearly identifies the sender as an anonymous player > elsewhere.
Clearly identifying someone as an unidentified player is a contradiction. -Goethe
