On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 19:16 -0500, Pavitra wrote: > > On 08/08/2011 06:56 PM, ais523 wrote: > > > On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 16:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> I CFJ on the following: > > >> Agora's right to participate in the fora is substantially limited. > > > > > > Wow, my mind's mental concept of Spivak seems to rebel at using "e" to > > > refer to Agora. Presumably it's not just genderless, but implies nothing > > > about intelligence or sentience, either. > > > > I agree with the narrower usage. We usually reserve 'e' for first-class > > persons, and use 'it' for second-class persons. > > I'm fine with 'e' for personlike persons. Agora doesn't act like a > person at all, though, it's a game. > > (Strangely, I'd be fine with 'e' for the projection of another nomic > into Agora, such as the PNP was, so long as it was equipped with a > reasonable way to act. It's just seeing it applied to Agora itself that > confuses me; I can't really visualise a game playing itself.)
Hm, the fact that e can't quit playing emself right now may be a more egregious violation of R101 than the first case. Ah, and phrased that way, "itself" is more correct as "playing emself" has a different connotation. -G.
