On Sat, 30 May 2009, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: > In my understanding of it, because it says "Any biological organism > ... is a person." and goes on to say "A first-class person is a person > of a biological nature. All other persons are second-class." there > can be no second class persons.
"Any biological organism...is a person" doesn't mean that all non- biological organisms are non-persons. This leaves it open for other rules to define non-biological persons with the caveat that, not being biological, they would be considered second-class. Does that make sense? There didn't used to be a strict definition of person in the ruleset, instead assuming that "common definitions" of persons would lead us to only count biological sentient beings. But a court case pointed out that in many legal contexts partnerships or other multi-person groups fit the legal definition of persons and by R754(c), legal definitions may be sometimes used over "common" definitions", and this led to groups of players registering as distinct "persons" until we came up with the "second-class" distinction. -G. ----------------------------------------------------------- Gravity Circumference Line Deja Vu Cardboard Duck e^(-kt)
