On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2237 > > ============================== CFJ 2237 ============================== > > Warrigal is party to a public contract called the UNDAD > > ======================================================================== > > Caller: ais523 > > Judge: root > Judgement: > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Called by ais523: 22 Oct 2008 13:57:08 GMT > Assigned to root: (as of this message) > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Evidence: > > On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 10:52 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Kyle is hereby defined as a non-registered entity on whose behalf I >> > can act by announcement. Kyle degregisters. >> >> You're the only such entity. This probably succeeds in establishing >> "Kyle" as a nickname for yourself and binding you to that awful >> contract. >> >> > For that matter, Kyle registers, if possible. >> >> Rule 869 makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Kyle to register at this time. > > Evidence: The quoted text above, and the fact that the UNDAD defines > "degregistering" as a method of joining it. Also, note that the UNDAD > was not a contract before the message (and may not have been > afterwards), due to having insufficiently many parties. > > Evidence: {{{ > comex wrote: >> I create the following contract: >> { >> 1. This is a public contract called the UNDAD. >> 2. Anyone can join this contract by announcement. Joining this >> contract is known as "degregistration". >> 3. comex CAN act on behalf of any party to this contract by announcement. >> } > }}} > > ========================================================================
This seems like a straight-forward TRUE to me. Are there any counter-arguments? -root
